crime of the century
Added 3/16/2009
the seller is excellent, very very accomodating...the tape was in perfect condition and arrived ahead of schedule...all in all, a very satisfied transaction
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Still a "did he do it" or "didn't he do it" case
Added 7/12/2005
I am old enuf to have lived thru this, as a child, so have an interest beyond just a story. This is a very good video of the story..and like those before and after...it remains unsolved altho the law "got their man"?
I like the actors in this HBO production. Well done and it is a "heavy" piece of material hence I don't agree with others that it was overacted.
No account solves this crime but this version is entertaining from that standpoint and informative also. I heartly recommend this video.
3 out of 3 people found this helpful.
|
surprised and curious
Added 8/28/2002
I know little about the Lindbergh kidnapping, and was shocked at the content of this video. I thought it was difficult in several respects: over-acted by the "heavies" (except, of course, Michael Moriarty), blatantly one-sided, and simplistic. However, I was drawn in and very interested in the simplistic, blatant script and found myself alternately puzzled, angry, and enraged. At my age, I admit to surprise in feeling such strong emotion at a display of justice/injustice in America, but this film hooked me and makes me feel naive again. I will read more about this case; therefore, using the yardstick of intellectual curiosity, I give it a "5". It also entertained me at 4 a.m., so despite the over-acting I'll give it an overall "4".
4 out of 7 people found this helpful.
|
Before there was OJ there was the Lindbergh Case.
Added 1/22/2002
Before there was OJ there was the Lindbergh Case. Charles Lindbergh jr., was kidnapped from his home in March 1932 and despite the payment of $50,000 ransom he was never seen alive again. Some time later his body was found less than a mile from his home leading to speculation that he never survived the actual kidnapping. For over a year the case went unsolved until a German immigrant was found to be spending the ransom money.When arrested the immigrant, Bruno Richard Hauptmann, was initially evasive. He finally stuck to a story that he had acquired the money from a fellow immigrant who left him a box for safekeeping while on a voyage back to Germany. When that man died in Europe owing Hauptmann money, he opened the box and discovered the cash. Figuring that this would serve as repayment Hauptmann hid the money not telling his wife or other friends owed money by the dead man. The police found this story unlikely and coupled with Hauptmann's initial falsehoods under questioning they became convinced that Hauptmann had been the killer and kidnapper of the Lindbergh baby. The case gave the nation and the world the first "Trial of the Century". A circus like atmosphere existed outside the courtroom with food and souvenirs for sale to the excitable crowd. The evidence presented was circumstantial but convincing to the jury. The defense maintained that much of it was doctored or coerced by the police; this was not convincing to the jury. The verdict was guilty and the sentence was death. Hauptmann was subjected to the ultimate penalty in 1936. But since that date the datable has raged on. There are many who are remain convinced by Hauptmann declarations of innocence and believe that he was railroaded to protect the careers of those who could not find the real killers. The more mainstream view holds that Hauptmann was in fact guilty of participation in the kidnapping. This movie is firmly on the side of Hauptmann. He is shown as an immigrant who is always hustling for a better life for his family who is chosen as a convenient victim for the justice establishment. His view of how he got the money is taken as fact and his brave stance maintaining his innocence costs him all possible lenience. Hauptmann's wife insists that 'the truth shall set you free' and is determined to prove that her husband was innocent of the crime. It is hard to say that any movie with Isabella Rossellini is not the best, however this movie does have some serious flaws. While made in the 90s the producers seem to feel that it was necessary to have the actors act like it was a 1930s gangster movie. Most of the 'bad guys' (The police and DA) are just a little too into playing the tough guys and a little too uninterested in discovering the facts of the case. It sets a jarring note that continues throughout the whole movie. It is possible that there were shady dealings and a rush to judgement. But some facts are indisputable. Hauptmann was found possessing $14,000 of ransom money. He did lie to the Police and the Lindbergh baby was dead. Some facts are undoubtedly lost to history forever, but this does not give the producers the right to make them up and then package them as history.
6 out of 10 people found this helpful.
|
Who dunnit? If you don�t know already, ...
Added 2/5/2000
Crime of the Century fails much in the same way the system of justice failed in the prosecution of for the kidnapping and murder of Charles Lindbergh's baby in the 1930s, not enough evidence.I know Mark Rydell (On Golden Pond) to be an extremely sensitive filmmaker and stage director, his motivation here, I'm sure was to present an alternative to Hauptmann's guilt, to entertain ideas that the prosecution may have erred. The evidence was only circumstantial, of the course the crime was horrible, but Hauptmann's execution may have been more a result of public outrage than guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And he may be right, based on everything I've read, he probably is right. Unfortunately all the probabilities in the world add up to nothing on screen. After only a couple of suppositions the viewer gets so lost in the ultimate goal of the story that he loses interest. I've watched this film 3 times, and lost interest every time. What a waste of terrific actors, including Stephen Rea, J.T. Walsh, Michael Moriarty, Vyto Ruginis, Barry Primus, and Allen Garfield. Without closure, as long we as know as little as we do about what actually happened, maybe this story is best left to the true-crime section of the local bookstore, or Investigative Reports, Dateline, or 20/20. Told this way, in this medium it's a sad waste of time.
5 out of 13 people found this helpful.
|