- Messages
- 14,392
- Location
- Small Town Ohio, USA
The trailer was released yesterday. Looks like plenty of great backgrounds, if nothing else.
It does provide some counterbalance to the Beatty/Dunaway version by portraying Frank Hamer as a more-than-competent lawman and doesn't glamorize Parker and Barrow the way the '67 movie did, but it also contains some factual inaccuracies and perpetuates the myth that Parker was a gun-toting femme fatale. As with many projects of this type, the truth lies somewhere in-between and depends on who's telling the story. As a result, I thought The Highwaymen was another by-the-numbers retelling of the story that only differed by telling the story from the "law enforcement" perspective for a change. Just to be clear, I'm not trying to say that's a good or a bad thing, but just once I'd like to see a story like this told by sticking to the facts and presenting a balanced/unbiased point-of-view.My wife and I just saw this and really enjoyed it. I gather this was to "correct" to some degree the abomination that was the Warren Beatty/Faye Dunaway "history" of the trackers.
Interesting take that I would recommend! Your mileage may vary...
It does provide some counterbalance to the Beatty/Dunaway version by portraying Frank Hamer as a more-than-competent lawman and doesn't glamorize Parker and Barrow the way the '67 movie did, but it also contains some factual inaccuracies and perpetuates the myth that Parker was a gun-toting femme fatale. As with many projects of this type, the truth lies somewhere in-between and depends on who's telling the story. As a result, I thought The Highwaymen was another by-the-numbers retelling of the story that only differed by telling the story from the "law enforcement" perspective for a change. Just to be clear, I'm not trying to say that's a good or a bad thing, but just once I'd like to see a story like this told by sticking to the facts and presenting a balanced/unbiased point-of-view.
I don't dispute that. Parker and Barrow were "active" for approximately two years more or less, so it's virtually impossibly to accurately sum up that time period in a movie that's only a couple of hours long. On the other hand, I can't recall ever having seen a documentary that wasn't biased or pushing some form of pro or con agenda, so why should I expect movies would be any different?The problem with that is, such a thing is called a documentary...
That in itself is part of the problem with this particular movie--there's no evidence that Bonnie Parker ever killed anyone. In fact, there are only two accounts of her ever firing a gun. So the scenes showing her firing the machine gun during the Eastham Prison Farm breakout and the coup de grace shot that killed one of the Highway Patrol officers that stopped them on Easter Sunday in 1934 are false, but people are going to see this movie and believe it's the truth. I'm not trying to defend her choices and actions after she met Clyde Barrow, but she simply wasn't the killer she was made out to be in the newspaper reports of the era and the pro-law statements made by the people tasked with stopping her and Barrow....Not sure how this portrayed Bonnie as anything more than a killer, as she has about five words of dialogue from a distance, and you do not even see her face until the end...
I agree. Every other "Bonnie and Clyde" project I've seen focused on them, and any information about their pursuers was mostly included only to show how it affected them. And "anything but glamorous" is spot on. They (and the various "gang" members who ran with them) were small-time crooks who mostly lived out of stolen cars from not long after the day they met until the day they died, and they were almost constantly on the run; not exactly an ideal lifestyle for a young couple....And the primary focus was as you say on the trackers, not the killers. I found that an interesting take as anything else would focus on B and C. They were anything but glamorous, and the fact that thousands turned out to their funerals is a shame.
Interesting. Everything I've read (and, admittedly, it's been a while) about the "Grapevine" murders stated there was only one eyewitness account, and that had been discredited when Henry Methvin later admitted he fired the first shot and that he and Barrow killed officers Murphy and Wheeler. Methvin also claimed Parker did approach the officers, but only to see if she could help them in some way. In retrospect this was probably more "revisionist narrative" with Methvin attempting to minimize Parker's participation.http://www.john-fusco.com/grapvine-the-easter-sunday-murders/
This interesting article (posted by the screenwriter of the Netflix movie) details the research for the facts that went into proving that Bonnie was, indeed, guilty of murdering officers of the law, and using a weapon several times while escaping (and that any 'facts' that came out later about her not using a gun were revisionist narratives pushed by the family members and 'fans').
Evidence of a recently uncovered indictment for Bonnie and Clyde for the Grapevine murders:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...rks-indictments-Bonnie-Clyde-old-records.html
Rob
I have no idea who made them, but both Costner and Harrelson wore fedoras in the movie. The brims on both were mostly flattened out, with a little upturn in the back and a little downturn in the front.On another note: Does anyone know who made the hats for Costner and Harrelson in this movie? And, what style is Costner's...a Homburg of some type (as I have read elsewhere)?
Rob
It does provide some counterbalance to the Beatty/Dunaway version by portraying Frank Hamer as a more-than-competent lawman and doesn't glamorize Parker and Barrow the way the '67 movie did, but it also contains some factual inaccuracies and perpetuates the myth that Parker was a gun-toting femme fatale....