Bonnie & Clyde/Badlands- Stephen Collins

and Clyde and Badlands are kinda kind of the same [similar films]. Both explores the world of criminality and the effects the media has on criminals in America. Both came out in the later half of the twentieth century  -  Bonnie and Clyde 1967 and Badlands 1974  -70s and both have strong performances and intriguing plots.

IMHO (in my humble opinion) Bonnie and Clyde is the better movie. The film has the better performances of the two from Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty. Beatty has the best performance in the film. Gene Wilder as Eugene the undertaker is good in the movie for the short time he is in it. The film is director [directed?] pretty well by Arthur Penn.



Badlands is a good movie. It has good performances from Steve Martin Sheen who does a great job at playing Kit Carruthers, a twenty-something former garbage collector loosely based upon the 1950s spree killer Charles Starkweather. Sissy Spacek in an early turn plays Holly who is 15 in the movie even though the actress was 24 when the film came out. The actress is pretty good ast playing Holly, the baton twirling apple of Kit's eye. Badlands is a character piece more than Bonnie and Clyde as the film is mostly about Kit and the performance of Martin Sheen while Bonnie and Clyde is about both Bonnie and Clyde and their performances and struggles.

I think Bonnie and Clyde  has more importance  in film in general. Bonnie and Clyde will and still is culturally important for films and that fact that is what based on true events unlike Badlands [both films were inspired by true events while it may be true that the real-life Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow reached folk hero status in their short lives, and the film about them forever changed the threshold on what onscreen violence was acceptable.  That will still be remember but not as much as Bonnie and Clyde for films in general. I say watch both, but Bonnie and Clyde you should definitely watch because of how important it is for filmmaking in general.