Jump to content

The Highwaymen - Netflix Film - Woody, Costner


Don Johnson

Recommended Posts

In retirement Frank Hamer lived on Riverside Dr, up on the bluff on the south side of the street. I think his house is still there. My Dad grew up in the house directly behind him (they shared the alley between Riverside and Harwood). So this hits close to my Dad's childhood home.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Just watched it. Pretty, pretty good. I'd dare say damn good for the $49m budget. It has it's flaws, mostly script, but that's less than Anchorman 2 or 22 Jump Street cost and it's infinitely better than either one.

John Lee Hancock did a great job. Loved the ensemble cameo casting. Nice way to expand the film's presence by cherry picking pivotal roles with quality actors while leaving enough money to snag Costner and Woody to carry the film (which both do quite well). It would easily recover it's budget if released in theaters and will likely get Emmy and GG nods. 3.5/5 stars

Edited by RPM
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is possible to pick a few nits here and there.  In the manner of practically all true life films, there are a lot of oversimplifications; the lead-up to the shooting at the end especially.  

Not sure why they showed Hamer frequently holding a handkerchief up to his mouth, implying that he was tubercular (or what?).  

The semi-informant beaten to death with the bat is an invention.  One of the prison escapees, Hilton Bybee, told Hamer that Henry Methvin was with the gang.  Maney Gault was no where near as central to the hunt as Hancock suggests. He was borrowed from the Highway Patrol, but Hamer only asked for him on 10 April. However, a lone wolf manhunt is perhaps hard to show on film--the Lone Rangers always have a Tonto as a next friend for exposition.   

Where was Pa Ferguson in the whole thing? In Lone Star, Fehrenbach  says James Ferguson was governor in all but name.  I suppose it would be awkward in this day and age to show that a woman governor was pretty much a figurehead for her impeached husband.

Why on earth did they show Hamer wearing a vest with his suit for the late May shooting?  Who wears a vest in Louisiana in late May?  There are a lot of pictures of Hamer and the others the day of the shooting and none that I have seen show him in a vest.

If I watch it two or three more times, which I probably will, I may spot a few more nits.  Altogether a very good movie.  Does Netflix ever release its productions on Blu-Ray?

Mrs. Idahorn's nephew did make the credits-a "Catering Assistant."

They could have tied the movie together with "Public Enemies" by bringing out that Hamer had discussed the case with Charlie Winstead (Dallas FBI) who, a few months later shot Dillinger in Chicago. Maybe even cast Stephan Lang as Winstead.  That does not count, of course, as a 'nit.'

Edited by idahorn
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woody playing off the emotionless Costner was good casting. I like Costner, but he has zero range. 

I like how they depicted Bonnie and Clyde as a faceless enemy. Don't give those pieces of s*** any more romantic qualities. They killed cops and deserved every bullet they got. 

Really good movie. I'm not sure Hollywood could do much better. They probably would have cast Chris Evans as Frank Hamer. 

Edited by billfromlaketravis
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, idahorn said:

It is possible to pick a few nits here and there.  In the manner of practically all true life films, there are a lot of oversimplifications; the lead-up to the shooting at the end especially.  

Not sure why they showed Hamer frequently holding a handkerchief up to his mouth, implying that he was tubercular (or what?).  

The semi-informant beaten to death with the bat is an invention.  One of the prison escapees, Hilton Bybee, told Hamer that Henry Methvin was with the gang.  Maney Gault was no where near as central to the hunt as Hancock suggests. He was borrowed from the Highway Patrol, but Hamer only asked for him on 10 April. However, a lone wolf manhunt is perhaps hard to show on film--the Lone Rangers always have a Tonto as a next friend for exposition.   

Where was Pa Ferguson in the whole thing? In Lone Star, Fehrenbach  says James Ferguson was governor in all but name.  I suppose it would be awkward in this day and age to show that a woman governor was pretty much a figurehead for her impeached husband.

Why on earth did they show Hamer wearing a vest with his suit for the late May shooting?  Who wears a vest in Louisiana in late May?  There are a lot of pictures of Hamer and the others the day of the shooting and none that I have seen show him in a vest.

If I watch it two or three more times, which I probably will, I may spot a few more nits.  Altogether a very good movie.  Does Netflix ever release its productions on Blu-Ray?

Mrs. Idahorn's nephew did make the credits-a "Catering Assistant."

They could have tied the movie together with "Public Enemies" by bringing out that Hamer had discussed the case with Charlie Winstead (Dallas FBI) who, a few months later shot Dillinger in Chicago. Maybe even cast Stephan Lang as Winstead.  That does not count, of course, as a 'nit.'

Yeah, I looked up some of the story afterwards and had some of these same questions, but I guess a lot of it has to do with making a movie that is actually interesting to watch while still keeping with the spirit of things. I'm usually a stickler for historical accuracy, especially when it comes to technical stuff like guns and costume, but there has to be some room for artistic license. It would be nice if there was a movie like this that then listed all the innaccuracies they took license with to make a story in the credits so that folks in the future don't get a stilted view of what actually happened.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Really good movie. I'm not sure Hollywood could do much better. They probably would have cast Chris Evans as Frank Hamer. 

Are you under the impression that Netflix, Costner, Harrelson, Bates, etc. aren't "Hollywood"?

Edited by Herpa Derpa
quotes for the amorphous bullshit word
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I looked up some of the story afterwards and had some of these same questions, but I guess a lot of it has to do with making a movie that is actually interesting to watch while still keeping with the spirit of things. I'm usually a stickler for historical accuracy, especially when it comes to technical stuff like guns and costume, but there has to be some room for artistic license. It would be nice if there was a movie like this that then listed all the innaccuracies they took license with to make a story in the credits so that folks in the future don't get a stilted view of what actually happened.


I noticed that they had rusted out early 30s cars in the slums. But it was the early 30s at the time, those cars were more or less the same age as the time period it was shot for.

I also have to say watching period pieces in 4K/HDR is something else. I love seeing the scenery that detailed since I’m used to old photos.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Solid movie.  Like that they showed everyone having an issue with killing in cold blood but at the end of the day acknowledge that Bonnie and Clyde needed killing.  It boggles my mind that people mobbed the car with the dead bodies inside.  WTF is wrong with people?  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched it with my daughter last night. I thought it was solid and I too liked the fact that they didn’t even really show Bonnie and Clyde until the end. My daughter thought it was a little slow, but enjoyed it also. The little historical slip ups didn’t really bother me except for the way they portrayed Ma Ferguson, but I’m sure that was just a product of our times.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was great. Photography and art direction were outstanding. Good story. Costner and Harrelson, as well as Bates, were great casting. Hancock did a good job directing. (Makes up some for the Alamo film, IMO. He’s gotten a lot better since then.) they did a good job with the 30’s depression look and the whole time period feel. I’ll definitely watch it again.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, AustinMT said:

Seriously?  I hope this is sarcasm because, if not, you are off on so many levels...

It has good actors, sure.

But the movie has them fucking kidnapping and humiliating Hamer, which the movie made out to be a fucking idiot, among many other glaring errors.  But that alone basically takes me out of the movie.

 

 

Edited by atomheartbevo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

It has good actors, sure.

But the movie has them fucking kidnapping and humiliating Hamer, which the movie made out to be a fucking idiot, among many other glaring errors.  But that alone basically takes me out of the movie.

 

 

It was not meant to be a biopic.  It was a historical semi-fiction, with great acting, a top notch script and acting, great directing and cinematography.  It changed filmmaking, and paved the way for movies like “The Wild Bunch.”  It’s on pretty much any of the “top movies” list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, AustinMT said:

It was not meant to be a biopic.  It was a historical semi-fiction, with great acting, a top notch script and acting, great directing and cinematography.  It changed filmmaking, and paved the way for movies like “The Wild Bunch.”  It’s on pretty much any of the “top movies” list.

It's a good movie.  But give me a choice between that or The Highwaymen, and I'll take The Highwaymen.  I don't care to see historical Texas figures mangled so badly on the big screen, especially when there was no reason to do so.  All they had to do was simply say the Texas Rangers were ruthless killers hunting them down after they had humiliated the state of Texas with the prison break, and leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

It's a good movie.  But give me a choice between that or The Highwaymen, and I'll take The Highwaymen.  I don't care to see historical Texas figures mangled so badly on the big screen, especially when there was no reason to do so.  All they had to do was simply say the Texas Rangers were ruthless killers hunting them down after they had humiliated the state of Texas with the prison break, and leave it at that.

No, they don’t have to say anything because IT WASN’T INTENDED TO BE HISTORICALLY ACCURATE. It was intended to be a fiction based on factual events.

That said,  like what you like.   They are different movies, both fine for what they were intended to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they don’t have to say anything because IT WASN’T INTENDED TO BE HISTORICALLY ACCURATE. It was intended to be a fiction based on factual events.
That said,  like what you like.   They are different movies, both fine for what they were intended to be.

Look, it’s an exceptional film. I love it. And it’s absurd to argue Bonnie and Clyde was a bad movie. But it’s based on real characters, uses their real names, and the script significantly alters what really happened. So I think saying “it wasn’t intended to be historically accurate” doesn’t absolve the film of the very legitimate complaints people have of the portrayal of Hamer. Shit, the film’s depiction of Hamer is the reason why they made Highwaymen.

Which I saw tonight and was entertained. It wasn’t great. But it was worth a couple of couch hours on a Tuesday night.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

 I don't care to see historical Texas figures mangled so badly on the big screen, especially when there was no reason to do so.

I bet you freaking hate Smokey and The Bandit.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was great. Netflix has thrown so much shit against the wall, hoping it sticks, I was prepared for severe disappointment, but this one was every bit as good as any other studio could produce.   Costner is fine, he's parsley, the extra on the plate necessary to deliver the meal.  

Also just got the email Netflix has upped my fee to $15.99/month for the whole family.  THE OUTRAGE.  Those fuckers have a much longer runway for me to pay if they produce more movies like this.  

 

Edited by Mach 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was good, not great.  It held my attention and I watched it straight through.  It's worth the 1.5 to two hours, IMO.  

Costner was kinda one-note.  I enjoyed Woody's portrayal of Gault, though.  I don't recall reading that Hamer and Gault were as close as this movie makes it appear. 

There was some other stuff in the movie that was BS -- I'll spoiler it in case there are those who haven't watched it yet.

Spoiler

The ambush at the end was Hollywood-ized.  Gault and Hamer never stepped out into the road and called on B&C to halt.  But I understand the tie-in with the whole "manos arriba" sub-story earlier in the movie, so I get why they had the Hamer and Gault characters do that in the movie.  According to Boessenecker's book, Hamer and the parish sheriff (Jordan) got into a disagreement prior to the ambush over whether to give B&C a chance to surrender.  The sheriff wanted to step into the road and demand their surrender.  Hamer was adamant -- based on prior instances of B&C's trigger-happiness and Hamer's own personal experiences decades earlier on the border -- that this would be a huge mistake.  In the end, Hamer won out.  The five lawmen blasted B&C's car from cover, and there was no stepping out into the road or any call for surrender.  And Hamer and Gault didn't pull pistols and shoot the car from the road when it rolled forward.  The rest of the depiction of the ambush (the jacked-up truck, Clyde's foot slipping off the brake, the car rolling forward, Bonnie with a sandwich on her lap, Clyde driving in his socks, etc.) was all pretty accurate, though, based on everything I've read.   

The scene were Woody (Gault) throttles 3 would-be assailants in the men's room of a roadhouse was pure BS.

The whole scene in Oklahoma where Hamer and Gault get into a car chase with B&C and then get bamboozled out in some dusty field by Clyde's driving was an even bigger vat of BS.

The near-riot in town after they towed the car in with B&C's bodies was a pretty good depiction of what actually happened, I think.  Based on what I've read, the crowd was even rowdier and more grotesque than what was shown in the movie.  People were cutting off clips of hair, ripping clothes, dipping hankies into blood, etc.  Nasty, bizarre stuff.  

 

 

 

Edited by Carl Spackler
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really amazes me how people can't enjoy a movie because it wasn't 150% accurate to historical detail. They embellished Gault & Hamer's relationship a little? The made up a bullshit story about Manos Arribas? They made up a car chase? Who gives a fuck?

Did they get the main things right? Yes

Was it entertaining? Yes

You shitbirds could ruin a threesome

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2019 at 7:20 PM, TxEx99 said:

Solid movie.  Like that they showed everyone having an issue with killing in cold blood but at the end of the day acknowledge that Bonnie and Clyde needed killing.  It boggles my mind that people mobbed the car with the dead bodies inside.  WTF is wrong with people?  

A girl who grew up in the house next door to me in San Antonio posted on FB the other day that her family has photos of Bonnie and Clyde's dead bodies taken himself by her great-grandfather.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, C-Man said:

A girl who grew up in the house next door to me in San Antonio posted on FB the other day that her family has photos of Bonnie and Clyde's dead bodies taken himself by her great-grandfather.

Hinton's film of the bodies and car is floating around on YouTube, and the autopsy photos of those two are....not as bad as you think until you look at details.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

It really amazes me how people can't enjoy a movie because it wasn't 150% accurate to historical detail. They embellished Gault & Hamer's relationship a little? The made up a bullshit story about Manos Arribas? They made up a car chase? Who gives a fuck?

Did they get the main things right? Yes

Was it entertaining? Yes

You shitbirds could ruin a threesome

Calm the fuck down, for chrissake.  People are expressing their opinions.  The vast majority of posts have been complimentary about the movie as a whole even if there are aspects of it that aren't historically accurate.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Loved the flick.  I'm not a fan of Costner at all, but I thought he was excellent and at his best.   Maybe the role was a good fit for his range, like Neo was for Keanu. 

Of course we all know Costner is an actor with unlimited range, but he really reminded me of his performance in McFarland, USA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

Was I nodding off on the airplane or was there a scene where one of them was playing saxophone while leaning against the car

I saw that.  thought it was one of the hoodlums hanging out by the car until the fuzz shows up.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...