Bank robbers and gangsters have long held a special spot in the collective psyche of many American moviegoers. We're not talking about the ski mask wearing variety of today, but the guys who, more than half a century ago and back, lived by certain personal codes that belied and often covered their more corrupt and often violent deeds. Just the mere mention of Capone, Dillinger, or the Dalton brothers elicits a near romanticized notion of a different time and place when criminals were "gentlemen" of sorts. Of course they really weren't, but time has a funny way of turning such people into "heroic" figures.
If you mention the name, "Newton," however, more people today would probably be inclined to think of the popular fig cookie instead of a brotherly group of bank robbers from the 1920's. Perhaps it's because they didn't kill anyone, but the Newton's never achieved the lofty status of their more famous associates. This is despite the fact that they were more "successful" than Butch and Sundance, Bonnie and Clyde, and even Jesse James.
Knocking off more than eighty banks in a span of five years, their spree culminated in their eventual capture after the largest train robbery ever. They subsequently served relatively little time and eventually died as old, but free men. It may just be a result of them not going down in a hail of bullets like so many others, but the Newton's never made it to that romanticized notion of pre-WWII criminals.
Twentieth Century Fox, director Richard Linklater ("SubUrbia," "Dazed and Confused"), and an attractive and talented cast of young men hope to change all of that. With their release of "The Newton Boys," they hope to find the same success that propelled movies such as "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" and "Bonnie and Clyde" into Hollywood history. Despite their efforts and the heartthrob cast, however, it's not very likely that they'll succeed.
That's not to say that the film is bad. It's just that it's surprisingly uneventful for a film that should be exciting and suspenseful. While there are a few action-filled moments, the rest of the picture has a bland feel to it. Sure, it perfectly captures the look and feel of that transitional period in the first decades of the twentieth century when transportation choices ranged from riding on horseback to riding in a motorcar, and when fancy gangster suits replaced standard issue cowboy dress. It also shows just how (amazingly) easy it was to rob banks back then. And it features a charismatic cast with a terrific performance from its lead actor, Matthew McConaughey.
Yet this truth-based story neither exudes the educationally interesting aspects of a documentary, nor the fun and excitement of a well-made bank robbery yarn. Instead, it just sort of meanders from one robbery to the next and from one year to the next. No terrific complications arise and no one "authority figure" stands out or pursues the brothers to add more suspense. In a word, the film comes off as uneventful.
Now, no one but historians can positively say just how accurately the truth was presented here by Linklater and fellow screenwriters Clark Lee Walker and Claude Stanush (who cowrote the book on which this is based). Their collective script, however, is the source of most of the film's problems. None of the characters -- beyond McConaughey's -- generates any vested interest from the audience, and even he can elicit only a small amount of sympathy for his character. While we don't mind watching their shenanigans, Linklater and company don't allow us to actively root for these guys. One of the first rules of storytelling is that an audience needs to root for somebody (the villains or the authority figure chasing them) to make a good, compelling film.
In direct relation, since these guys were the most successful criminals of their time, they obviously either were very good or had little "heat" to "persuade" them to stop. While they obviously knew what they were doing, as presented here the lack of conflict -- and the fact that they were gentlemen bandits who considered themselves as businessmen -- makes the film come off as anything but exciting -- a definite "no-no" for a movie dealing with period bank robbers.
This is despite a terrific cast filled with extremely charismatic performers who seem more realistic in their roles than many of their cohorts whose previous efforts often give the feeling of watching some kids raid the costume shop. The obvious standout is McConaughey ("A Time To Kill," "Amistad") who delivers what might just be the best performance of his career. In other films his "good old boy" Southern charm has often worked against him, but not so in this picture. He easily slides into this character and is nothing but completely believable.
Ethan Hawke ("Great Expectations," "Gattaca") also delivers a believable performance as the wildest and most carefree of the brothers, and the look on his face when he's finally caught and arrested late in the film is priceless. Skeet Ulrich ("Scream," "As Good As It Gets") does a good job portraying the brother with the most reservations and ethical problems regarding their endeavors, but the fabulous Vincent D'Onofrio ("Men In Black," "The Whole Wide World") is nearly wasted in his role that doesn't give him much to do other than eventually get shot. Likewise, Julianna Margulies ("Paradise Road," TV's "ER") seems present mainly as an attractive set decoration -- or perhaps to "water down" all of the testosterone -- and isn't given much to do either, other than play the stereotypically concerned romantic interest.
Despite the decent cast, they are completely overshadowed and exposed as nothing more than actors playing parts (which, of course, is what they are) when Linklater includes separate interviews with the real Joe and Willis Newton during their later years that play alongside the closing credits. Still full of life and humor (at the time of the interviews), one gets the feeling that their real-life escapades were probably a lot more exciting than how this movie turns out. Even so, this isn't a horrible film by any means, and is easy to watch despite its rather bland nature. While you may leave the theater liking it, you'll instinctively know it would have been a great deal better had you really cared or been concerned about someone in the picture. For that reason, we give "The Newton Boys" just a 5.5 out of 10.
![[Screen It]](https://www.screenit.com/images/screenit_subscriber_logo.jpg){kind=logo}
![[Around the World in 80 Days]](https://www.screenit.com/images/posters/movies/around_the_world_in_80_days_2022_small.jpg)
![[Family Camp]](https://www.screenit.com/images/posters/movies/family_camp_small.jpg)
![[Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness]](https://www.screenit.com/images/posters/movies/doctor_strange_in_the_multiverse_of_madness_small.jpg)