The Newton Boys

An okay crime drama; nowhere near Linklater's best. Might be his worst, actually.

Enjoyable western has a distinct problem with tone, teetering between BUTCH CASSIDY shenanigans and WILD BUNCH brutality, so that the final result feels tonally at odds with itself. McConaughey makes the strongest impression in the cast, though all the 'boys' are fine; Marguiles unfortunately feels far too contemporary to convince as a 20s gal. Excellent, old-fashioned score, and the end-credit sequence of the real-life boys is worth the price of admission.

young guys with guns and a still straight skeet ulrich, you can tell this is mid ninties

Made excessively interesting by being true. While this has some slow spots (stupid collage of exploding safes & falling money, even mushy romance) it still manages to be pretty entertaining, although i cant say exactly why. Perhaps its the giddy rationalization for robbery.

It was an odd film. I like the actors, and there were many parts I enjoyed. But it was just so difficult to swallow on so many levels that it became completely unengaging. First the soundtrack was horrible in that it had no rhyme or reason, the movie would come to a sad scene and the soundtrack would go to a comic theme? Also on illogical, most of the movie characters were running at each other and beating eachother up with loaded guns. Then only when they could miss would characters shoot.

The fact that it's a true story is really what makes the film worth watching. Other than that, I didn't think it was anything special. Definitely not on par with Richard Linklater's best films. The performances are fine, but no real standouts. Ultimately, I just didn't find it terribly interesting to watch.

The actors have great chemistry together, even though, this isn't the most exciting film about crime in the 1920's.

The absolute worst by Linklater

The most interesting part were the interviews during the credits. Otherwise, just another everyday story of a family of bank robbers.

60.33.

I liked this way better than my 41 psi. Finally, a "this is a true story"-film where you actually feel like it's pretty true; maybe mostly due to the real life footage at the end. But hell, although it hasn't got Linklater's normal uniqueness (far from it), I liked the characters and thought the acting was good. And, well, the story's interesting, so ... it's all alright then, innit?

Not bad but quite boring.

Good film.

Matthew McConaughey is an underrated actor. It wouldn't be half as interesting if it wasn't all true, though.

Linklater made this film after a series of really good, experimentally structured films, and like most of his more conventional films, he doesn't seem all that interested in it. It's an amiable film with some likable actors ... Julianna Margulies, Chloe Webb, Bo Hopkins and Luke Askew all turn up in supporting roles ... but it doesn't seem to be heading anywhere really interesting and it makes the mistake of constantly reminding you of just how indebted it is to "Bonnie and Clyde".

McConaughey, Ulrich, Hawke and D'onofrio all provide solid performances

A bank robber movie more interested in the bank robbers than it is in the robberies themselves. We get a couple of robberies up front, a tide-turning robbery in the middle, and one big robbery at the end. But most of their robberies get shoved into a montage, while the ones we do see are more interested in character banter than the action of the robbery-a strength of the film. The characters could be more insightfully drawn, but the film does well to give each of them space to breath and develop