Bonnie and Clyde (film)

Dave Kaufman of ''[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]'' criticized the film for uneven direction and for portraying Bonnie and Clyde as bumbling moronic types.<ref name=varrev>{{Cite magazine |last=Kaufman |first=Dave |date=August 9, 1967 |url=https://variety.com/1967/film/reviews/bonnie-and-clyde-2-1200421438/ |title=Film Reviews: Bonnie and Clyde |magazine=[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]] |page=6 |access-date=August 20, 2019 |archive-date=August 20, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190820011118/https://variety.com/1967/film/reviews/bonnie-and-clyde-2-1200421438/ |url-status=live }}</ref> [[Joe Morgenstern]] in ''[[Newsweek]]'' initially panned the film as a "squalid shoot-'em-up for the moron trade", but after seeing it a second time and noting the enthusiastic audience, he wrote a second article saying he had misjudged the film and praised it.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-aug-25-ca-25695-story.html |first=Patrick |last=Goldstein |title=Bonnie & Clyde & Joe & Pauline |date=August 25, 1997 |work=Los Angeles Times}}</ref> Warner Bros. took advantage of this, marketing the film as having made a major critic change his mind about its virtues.<ref>Harris, Mark. ''Pictures at a Revolution: Five Films and the Birth of a New Hollywood''. Penguin Press, 2008, pp. 341–342.</ref>

Dave Kaufman of ''[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]'' criticized the film for uneven direction and for portraying Bonnie and Clyde as bumbling moronic types.<ref name=varrev>{{Cite magazine |last=Kaufman |first=Dave |date=August 9, 1967 |url=https://variety.com/1967/film/reviews/bonnie-and-clyde-2-1200421438/ |title=Film Reviews: Bonnie and Clyde |magazine=[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]] |page=6 |access-date=August 20, 2019 |archive-date=August 20, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190820011118/https://variety.com/1967/film/reviews/bonnie-and-clyde-2-1200421438/ |url-status=live }}</ref> [[Joe Morgenstern]] in ''[[Newsweek]]'' initially panned the film as a "squalid shoot-'em-up for the moron trade", but after seeing it a second time and noting the enthusiastic audience, he wrote a second article saying he had misjudged the film and praised it.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-aug-25-ca-25695-story.html |first=Patrick |last=Goldstein |title=Bonnie & Clyde & Joe & Pauline |date=August 25, 1997 |work=Los Angeles Times}}</ref> Warner Bros. took advantage of this, marketing the film as having made a major critic change his mind about its virtues.<ref>Harris, Mark. ''Pictures at a Revolution: Five Films and the Birth of a New Hollywood''. Penguin Press, 2008, pp. 341–342.</ref>

{{quote box|width=30em|bgcolor=cornsilk|fontsize=100%|salign=center|quote=[A]s a re-creation of reality, ''Bonnie and Clyde'' can only be described as dishonest&nbsp;... neither Faye Dunaway nor Warren Beatty acts in a proper Thirties mode, nor do they seem to understand the feelings of the desperate and the underprivileged. The actress' willowy modern charm is no more appropriate to the lethal, serpentine coldness of the real Bonnie Parker than the actors' sensitive, matinee idol's looks have the right style for the shoddy vanity of Clyde Barrow.|source=—Film historian [[Charles Higham (biographer)|Charles Higham]] in ''The Art of the American Film: 1900–1971''. (1973).<ref>Charles Higham. 1973. ''The Art of the American Film: 1900–1971''. Doubleday & Company, Inc. New York. {{ISBN| 0-385-06935-9}} p. 302</ref>}}

{{quote box|width=30em|bgcolor=cornsilk|fontsize=100%|salign=center|quote=[A]s a re-creation of reality, ''Bonnie and Clyde'' can only be described as dishonest&nbsp;... neither Faye Dunaway nor Warren Beatty acts in a proper Thirties mode, nor do they seem to understand the feelings of the desperate and the underprivileged. The actress' willowy modern charm is no more appropriate to the lethal, serpentine coldness of the real Bonnie Parker than the actor's sensitive, matinee idol's looks have the right style for the shoddy vanity of Clyde Barrow.|source=—Film historian [[Charles Higham (biographer)|Charles Higham]] in ''The Art of the American Film: 1900–1971''. (1973).<ref>Charles Higham. 1973. ''The Art of the American Film: 1900–1971''. Doubleday & Company, Inc. New York. {{ISBN| 0-385-06935-9}} p. 302</ref>}}

[[Roger Ebert]] gave ''Bonnie and Clyde'' a positive review, giving it four stars out of four. He called the film "a milestone in the history of American movies, a work of truth and brilliance", adding, "It is also pitilessly cruel, filled with sympathy, nauseating, funny, heartbreaking, and astonishingly beautiful. If it does not seem that those words should be strung together, perhaps that is because movies do not very often reflect the full range of human life."<ref>{{cite web | last=Ebert | first=Roger | author-link=Roger Ebert | title=Bonnie and Clyde | website=Roger Ebert | date=September 25, 1967 | url=https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/bonnie-and-clyde-1967 | access-date=August 20, 2019 | archive-date=November 11, 2017 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171111205357/https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/bonnie-and-clyde-1967 | url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="50years"/> More than 30 years later, Ebert added the film to his list in ''[[The Great Movies]]'', writing: "The movie opened like a slap in the face. American filmgoers had never seen anything like it."<ref>{{cite news|last=Ebert|first=Roger|author-link=Roger Ebert|title=Great Movie Reviews - ''Bonnie and Clyde''|url=https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-bonnie-and-clyde-1967|newspaper=[[Chicago Sun Times]]|date=August 3, 1998|access-date=April 27, 2022|via=RogerEbert.com}}</ref> Film critics [[Dave Kehr]] and [[James Berardinelli]] have praised the film.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Berardinelli |first1=James |title=Bonnie and Clyde (United States, 1967) |url=https://www.reelviews.net/reelviews/bonnie-and-clyde |website=Reel Views |access-date=May 30, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Kehr |first1=Dave |title=Arthur Penn, Director of 'Bonnie and Clyde,' Dies |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/movies/30penn.html |work=The New York Times |date=September 29, 2010 |access-date=May 30, 2022}}</ref> [[Stephen Hunter]], writing in ''[[Commentary (magazine)|Commentary]]'' in 2009, criticized the film's failure to adhere to the historical truth about Barrow, Parker, and Hamer.<ref>{{cite magazine |url=https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/stephen-hunter/clyde-and-bonnie-died-for-nihilism/ |title=Clyde and Bonnie Died for Nihilism |last=Hunter |first=Stephen |author-link=Stephen Hunter |magazine=[[Commentary (magazine)|Commentary]] |date=July–August 2009 |access-date=May 14, 2020 |archive-date=September 11, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200911230447/https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/stephen-hunter/clyde-and-bonnie-died-for-nihilism/ |url-status=live}}</ref>

[[Roger Ebert]] gave ''Bonnie and Clyde'' a positive review, giving it four stars out of four. He called the film "a milestone in the history of American movies, a work of truth and brilliance", adding, "It is also pitilessly cruel, filled with sympathy, nauseating, funny, heartbreaking, and astonishingly beautiful. If it does not seem that those words should be strung together, perhaps that is because movies do not very often reflect the full range of human life."<ref>{{cite web | last=Ebert | first=Roger | author-link=Roger Ebert | title=Bonnie and Clyde | website=Roger Ebert | date=September 25, 1967 | url=https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/bonnie-and-clyde-1967 | access-date=August 20, 2019 | archive-date=November 11, 2017 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171111205357/https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/bonnie-and-clyde-1967 | url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="50years"/> More than 30 years later, Ebert added the film to his list in ''[[The Great Movies]]'', writing: "The movie opened like a slap in the face. American filmgoers had never seen anything like it."<ref>{{cite news|last=Ebert|first=Roger|author-link=Roger Ebert|title=Great Movie Reviews - ''Bonnie and Clyde''|url=https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-bonnie-and-clyde-1967|newspaper=[[Chicago Sun Times]]|date=August 3, 1998|access-date=April 27, 2022|via=RogerEbert.com}}</ref> Film critics [[Dave Kehr]] and [[James Berardinelli]] have praised the film.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Berardinelli |first1=James |title=Bonnie and Clyde (United States, 1967) |url=https://www.reelviews.net/reelviews/bonnie-and-clyde |website=Reel Views |access-date=May 30, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Kehr |first1=Dave |title=Arthur Penn, Director of 'Bonnie and Clyde,' Dies |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/movies/30penn.html |work=The New York Times |date=September 29, 2010 |access-date=May 30, 2022}}</ref> [[Stephen Hunter]], writing in ''[[Commentary (magazine)|Commentary]]'' in 2009, criticized the film's failure to adhere to the historical truth about Barrow, Parker, and Hamer.<ref>{{cite magazine |url=https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/stephen-hunter/clyde-and-bonnie-died-for-nihilism/ |title=Clyde and Bonnie Died for Nihilism |last=Hunter |first=Stephen |author-link=Stephen Hunter |magazine=[[Commentary (magazine)|Commentary]] |date=July–August 2009 |access-date=May 14, 2020 |archive-date=September 11, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200911230447/https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/stephen-hunter/clyde-and-bonnie-died-for-nihilism/ |url-status=live}}</ref>