Crime of the Century

Call me a bleeding-heart liberal, but I guess I'm a sucker for movies about people who are wrongly accused. This movie, however, failed to move me, even though I've read books on the subject and the case itself moves me. Rydell and Nicholson do a good job setting up the circumstances that led Hauptmann to become a suspect, and to even arouse suspicions in us, but the dialogue and individual scenes fall completely flat, because they're obvious and heavy-handed. To make matters worse, some of the actors, like David Paymer and Allen Garfield, seem to have been told they were in an over-acting contest. Walsh is good, as is the ever dependable Moriarty, but Rea seems lacking as Hauptmann.

Strangely Hollywood has been urged to expose some mediatic cases from the past, quite sure aiming for capitalize in highly viewing figures, it was the second TV movie over the so infamous Lindberg kidnaping case, a kind of revisionist offering likewise its forerunner made by Buzz Kulik in 1976, both openly in favor of the defendant the German carpenter Bruno Richard Hauptmann (Stephen Rea) the filmmakers emphasize the accused as clean persona, however everything suggest that he was really involved with the kidnapers gang.

Therefore the picture points out in an alleged not guilty setting, displaying countless contradictions concerning the weak proves against Hauptman, also focuse at his trustful wife played by a foreigner Isabella Rossellini due its hard European accent as major character in this hard case giving a impression that his husband was telling truth, the supporting casting improves the drama at high patten in time-period on thirties, fine locations and given a sort of semi-documentary realism.

Unfortunately the charitable screenwriter inserts some inaccurate facts as the Governor Harold Hoffman (Michael Moriarty) struggling hard over in another trial, worst visiting the inmate at prison, whereby it never really occurred, (go figure) looking back with an independent sharp eyes many questions remain unanswered such as "Why the filmmakers didn't touch over the accused had dropped his job after the kidnap living with a new car on flamboyant lifestyle?" Or "Why Lloyd Fisher didn't have a penny to pay his rent room?" "Why Hauptman didn't share with his wife the money hidden in garage?" Well it sounds controversial over a not guilty man!!

Thanks for reading.

Resume:

First watch: 1998 / How many: 2 / Source: Cable TV-Youtube / Rating: 8.

This film, upon seeing the first few minutes, made me feel that it would be just like every other movie portraying a different perspective of the Lindbergh Kidnapping Case. But as the minutes dragged on I realized this was a touching story that makes the viewer really question the true outcome of the case over 50 years ago. This film made me look into the facts of the case, and 'Crime of the Century' portrays a popular and very possible outcome of the true case. For anyone who is an avid follower of the case, this movie is a must see. Rea's performance stirs the viewer to care for the accused Hauptmann and intends to set Bruno Hauptmann's side of the story straight.

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.

This is a great film. Stephen Rea and Isabella Rosellini are wonderful as Hauptmann and his wife. There was a tv film made about the Lindbergh case in 1976 that was very simplistic and accepted the case against Hauptmann at face value. This film, like Ludovic Kennedy's excellent book, dare to be different. As they say in the film, the case against Hauptmann smells like a cesspool. All of the evidence against him was either manufactured or misrepresented. There is no doubt this man was sent to his death because of a diabolical frame up. They do an excellent job of showing it point by point. Hauptmann was beaten by the police. There were only two witnesses at the trial who placed him anywhere near Lindbergh's house. One of them was an old man who was legally blind and the other was a man with a criminal record and a reputation as a pathological liar. Hauptmann's lawyer was an alcoholic who told several people he wanted him executed! Lindbergh claimed he could identify Hauptmann's voice and yet he had only heard the kidnapper say two words over two and a half years earlier. Doctor John Condon who gave the ransom to the kidnapper, testified at the trial it was Hauptmann and yet he failed to identify Hauptmann when he first saw him in a police lineup and then said he was NOT the man he saw. There was evidence the police doctored and forged handwriting samples from Hauptmann to make them appear like the writing on the ransom notes. There have been many experts who said Hauptmann DIDNT write the notes. One key piece of evidence at the trial was a board taken from Hauptmanns closet that had Condon's phone number written on it. I saw an interview once with a member of the jury who said this was the evidence that convinced her the most Hauptmann was guilty. Yet, there was a reporter for a tabloid newspaper who admitted HE had written it in the closet. He said he didn't think anyone would take it seriously because the closet had already been searched. Hauptmann was found with some of the ransom money hidden in his garage. He claimed a man named Fisch had given him the money and then gone back to Germany and died. The newspapers called this "The Fish Story". There is overwhelming evidence there really was a man by this name and he was a known mobster who might have been the real culprit behind the kidnapping. This is a film that should be seen because it tells of a time when justice erred and an innocent man paid with his life.