Bonnie and Clyde (1967)

Plot: A fictional retelling of the rise and fall of the 1930s American criminals, Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker.
Stars:  Warren Beatty, Faye Dunaway, Gene Hackman
Best Quote:  Who wants to see a movie about the rise and fall of a couple of rats? These movies went out with Cagney - Jack Warner


On the 50th anniversary of this "classic", I decided to give it a re-watch.  I've seen B&C at least three times in my life. The first time was on TV.  Like the other school boys, I was astounded at the  "cool violence" and hotness of Faye Dunaway.  Today, I'm still amazed at how "Hot" Dunaway is, but the violence seems much less "cool".

B&C, with its sympathy for blood-thirsty killers, dark humor and graphic violence was a milestone film. It blazed the way for  directors like Oliver Stone and Quentin Tarantino. In 1967,  it was greeted with applause from vulgarians like Pauline Kael and boos from the stuffed shirts like Bosley Crowther.

My Opinion
So what did I think?

Well, my opinion is mixed.  The acting is great, except for Warren Beatty, and the direction and technical aspects are good.  But there are several problems.

First, the middle part of the film is rather dull.  Its an endless series of holdups, shootouts, and discussions/arguments about Clyde's "sexual problems", and disputes within the gang. Second, the violence is dated.  All the "gore" denounced in 1967 as "too graphic" today seems old hat and fake. Third, the whole thing seems pointless.

Lastly, the movie is too "Hollywood".  B&C have a beautiful wardrobe with Bonnie changing into a new outfit every scene, and everything looks like California.  All the "average people" seem like Hollywood extras, instead of real people (Note that all the "squares" robbed or killed are middle-aged and/or homely) and its obvious that the same sets and locations are being used over and over again.  Its not a bad film, but an 8.0 IMDB rating is too high. I'd rate it much lower.

Warren Beatty
I've always admired that Beatty knew his limitations as an actor. When producing, he covered them up, by letting other actors share the load.  B&C is no exception.  Hackman, Dunaway and Pollard are given stand-out roles with most of the good lines.  It all revolves around "Clyde", but he's somewhat passive.

But even so, Beatty is the weak link.  He has little chemistry with Dunaway, and he's unbelievable as a Depression-era bandit.  If Eastwood was the arch-typical "Tough guy", then Beatty was the exact opposite.  On-screen, Warren Beatty doesn't have an ounce of "toughness".  Later, he would play a Beverly Hills hairdresser/Ladies man with complete conviction.  Which made him a bad fit for Clyde Barrow.

B&C and History
 If you read any of the left/liberal film critics you'll be struck by their double standard regarding film and history - B&C is complete balls as history. The real B&C were ordinary people and ruthless killers - they killed any policeman or civilian who crossed them.  They weren't beautiful, charming, or funny. Nor did they rob the rich to give to the poor.

For example, the real B&C would have murdered Texas Ranger Frank Hammer in a heart beat, let alone set him free after some mockery and a kiss.  It'd take a a whole page to detail all the historical inaccuracies. Needless to say, some of the real-life people portrayed in the film - and still alive in 1967 - sued Warner Brothers and got a significant payout.