Hollywood took more than 50 years to echo classic Arthur Benny and Clyde. In that 1967 edition, jurist Frank Hammer appeared specifically confused and incompetent except for the scene of the last ambush.
In the new version, The Highwaymen, directed by John Lee Hancock (The Blind Side 2009 and Saving Mr. Banks 2013 and Founder 2016), we see the other side of the story of two of the most dangerous bank robbers in history, Bonnie and Clyde, where the story is told from the point of view of the two policemen who were arrested in China.
In this version of the story that bought the Netflix home broadcast platform, Hummer has the required competence and reaches the chefs as a result of his conclusion and achievement, not as lucky as in the first film. Although he does not approach the level of the classic film of seasoned veterans, Lauren Betty and Faye Danway, it is more accurate in terms of historical facts, especially the scene of the final ambush where the image of Hancock where it occurs.
The story begins with Texas Governor Miriam Ferguson (Cathy Bates in the best role in a tasteless mood), who is reluctant to bring retired police officers Frank Hammer (Kevin Costner) and Mani Gault (Woody Harrison) back to help the police and FBI's arrest efforts On thieves.
Although federal agents and police hide aggressively against the older officers, Frank's methods and his traditional accomplice are successful, as technology-based methods fail. The final ambush is depicted differently from the 1967 version, which is closer to the truth.
Firstly from the point of view of the police, and secondly to an exaggeration. Thirdly, Clyde does not get out of the car, and there is no fourth glance between them before they die. Basically they never showed up in the Hancock version except in the last scene and as a ghost. Perhaps this was intended by Hancock to indicate that they were a myth.
In fact, you have to remind yourself repeatedly that you see the story of Bonnie and Clyde on the other side, because it really seems like a different story that the thieves remember only when their name is mentioned, or you have to imagine my home and Danway on the other side. The film has some dry comedy, a very dry and serious film, which sometimes undermines the way the film's heroes use each other, as if Hancock wanted to keep his movie about Arthur Ben as far as possible to avoid anything that might be understood as artificial. The tone of the 1967 film.
The film was ready more than a decade before the movie began. The initial conception was to assign the roles of the tournament to Robert Redford and Paul Newman. After the last death in 2008, Redford withdrew. Edited by Harrison with Liam Nissen, the latter was busy with many projects, prompting Costner, the champion of "Dancing with the Wolves" to join the crew.
Costner recalls himself when he played the role of the famous federal agent Eliot Ness who signed Alcabon in the film The Untouchables in 1987. The characterization of Costner reflects Hammer's maturity with the experience accumulated over the past decades.
Costner is confident and plays his part in harmony with Harrison, and despite this harmony, the film does not deepen the relationship between them as it should, so this aspect in some parts is not convincing the required degree.
The film is very slow because of Hamer's long lectures. Anyone who sympathizes or admires China deserves a long lecture from Hammer! Of the policeman who grew up with them and considers them the victims of a psychological contract, Hammer punished him with a long boring lecture and punished him. Hummer goes to Clyde's father (William Sadler) who does not despise his criminal son. Hammer punishes him with a longer lecture and we are punished. Luckily, Hancock does not devote a scene to Hamer to lecture the fans of Chen, otherwise this long film will last two and a half hours!
On the other hand, Hancock does not go into too much detail about the work of the two policemen, knowing that the films and series of police detailing the investigation procedures are very interesting, and it would be interesting if we knew how two officers moved from retirement to the final ambush and emptied machine guns into the thieves' bodies.
Hancock and his writer John Vesco are more interested in the wide-angle shots of the sky, criticizing a society that glorifies criminals and is seen as celebrities and stars.
In the 1967 version, the son of the two thieves and the two of them regretted committing the murders after they had to do so. In one scene, Clyde asks: Why did the shopkeeper assault me with a meatball? I did not mean to hurt him.
Here we do not see any of this, and Hamer's view is clear: the two thieves are criminals and the public's admiration and obsession are really annoying, but Hancock does not have much to say about the criminals or the policemen who cling to them. He is only interested in lectures about bad choices and what a person must do to keep a peace in a hideous world.
This film certainly supports Netflix's arsenal and increases its presence in the 50-year-old audience and beyond, but it certainly will not remove the 1967 classic from its throne. Frank Hammer's widow sued Warner Bros. for misrepresenting her husband and showing him a shaky, incompetent jerk. The two parties reached an out-of-court settlement in 1971.
To view this topic in full, please click on this link.
The story of two of the most dangerous bank robbers in history, narrated from the point of view of the two policemen who were arrested in China.
The film contains some dry comedy, a dry and serious film, which sometimes undermines the way the film's heroes use each other.