It’s just a long movie that just exists. It doesn’t really show any real excitement or really tell an interesting story.
Is it really that long? The credits roll at around 2 hours, 5 minutes. As far as not telling an interesting story goes, it's based on the real story of two retired Texas Rangers who successfully tracked down Bonnie & Clyde. As far as "real excitement" goes, maybe that's the problem: The filmmakers shot for
realism rather than the thrills of, say, James Bond or Batman.
And by "realism" I don't mean exact historical accuracy; movies never are for many reasons. For instance, Frank Hamer never approached Bonnie & Clyde from the front of their vehicle. Hamer & co. just blew them to smithereens as soon as it was determined it was the rogue couple..
The picture is a reverent period piece about life in the Great Depression and the pursuit & execution of the infamous Bonnie & Clyde by a couple of aged, but experienced men. If that story doesn't interest potential viewers, I suggest staying away. It's a great counterbalance to the 1967 movie with Beatty & Dunaway, which painted the thugs more sympathetically.
The film has the confidence to take its time, unlike say "Aquaman," which anxiously jumped to an explosive action scene just when a dramatic part was getting interesting. If "The Highwaymen" is sometimes slow & boring it's because the actual pursuit was also slow and often boring. This is not a flick for people with ADHD who demand an explosion every five minutes. It's for people who like period pieces like "The Whole Wide World," "Cross Creek," "Of Mice and Men," "The Cider House Rules," "The Green Mile," and "Water for Elephants," not to mention other versions of Bonnie and Clyde.
reply
share
MasterPenguin (165)
6 years ago
That’s it though the story they were telling even in terms of realism is way more interesting than what the movie makes it. The movie is essentially two guys sitting in a car not really doing anything until something just happens and your sitting there going how did we even get to this point, because the scenes haven’t flowed well enough to make you understand it.
It doesn’t even showcase what you are saying at all either. We get the bare minimum showing stuff about how life is hard. Also aging? The guy the story is based around was a living legend and a badass. He was older yes but the stories around him showcase how age wouldn’t have slowed him down. Which is not what we get in the movie.
If by take its time you mean never ever pays off or tell an interesting story and just runs at a continually slow pace that offers nothing of interest to the viewer. Then sure it took its time. I have seen longer movies and I can tell you that movies can have no action and still be amazing. Hell I watched the post which isn’t not an action movie and very much just people talking and chasing down leads. Yet that there was more exciting and intriguing than the highwaymen.
This movie is not for those people. This movie isn’t for anyone. It’s a long slow mess of a movie that showcases no depth to a story that deserves it. There is no defence to this movie. It’s just a bad boring movie.
reply
share
Wuchak (8732)
6 years ago
The guy the story is based around was a living legend and a badass. He was older yes but the stories around him showcase how age wouldn’t have slowed him down.
Age slows
everyone down, whether you acknowledge it or not, including badass Hamer. And the film depicts this.
RE: "This movie isn’t
for anyone."
That's funny because I enjoyed it very much as a period piece and a realistic counterbalance to the 1967 movie with Beatty & Dunaway, which painted the thugs more sympathetically, as well as the excellent "Bonnie & Clyde: The True Story" (1992).
Your adamant statement is also proven wrong by all the high rated reviews on IMDb and elsewhere. But if you want to preach your loathing from the rooftops, knock yourself out.
reply
share