David

A tough topic about a dispicable coward loser who harmed his son.

This story is supposedly told through his mom and is a true story. I do wonder if the scenes with the boy and the thing called "dad" were based on any of his memories of the days leading up...?

My main complaint: why oh why did they pick Bernadette Peters to play the mom? With that babydoll voice and complete inability to act - its absolutely an assault on the senses. This was a part that required someone who could act a wide range of emotions - shock, sorrow, doubt, love, grief, anger, guilt, regret. All she could muster was a facsimile of an annoying brat having a temper tantrum.

I've enjoyed her performances in comedies. And I've seen comedic actors rise to give compelling dramatic performances, but she's simply doesn't have the talent.

The only thing saving this dated movie is the fact it's based on a true story. Her performance ruins it.

I think the character that plays the judge in this film says it best, I have never seen such a hideous crime or so innocent a victim. Bernadette Peters is basically known as a singer, but she does an awesome acting job in this real life horror story. What kind of an animal would pour gasoline over his six year old child and burn him over 90% of his body. John Glover said that this was the only time in his career that he was really traumatized playing a character. This movie doesn't really show why Rothenberg was so evil, but it does an excellent job of showing the horrible suffering he caused this child. Be warned, this movie is so grim that at time its almost unwatchable. An infuriating footnote, Rothenberg sentenced his son to a lifetime of disfigurement and pain, but he was released from jail after serving only six years. They have since changed the laws he was sentenced under, today he would have gotten life without parole.

the movie first aired on TV when I was 14 and I wanted to see it. But my parents told me that it was very upsetting and sad and so did friends. But I still wanted to see it.

And In 1991 I finally saw the movie. I was both horrified and heartbroken about what I was watching and all I could do was cry. How can anyone ever hurt a little child like that. It's heart breaking to know that a parent could ever hurt an innocent little child in that way(or anyway.).

What broke my heart the most was the part where the doctor showed him his reflection in the mirror. And he though that he looked like a monster. That just broke my heart all together. My older sister and I couldn't stop crying.

As a fan of Bernadette Peters, I make it a point to see anything she did. I had never heard of David Rothenberg's story until seeing this movie. It is an amazing story of triumph in a time of horrible tragedy.

This is one of the best "Made for TV dramas" I have ever seen. Bernadette Peters is fabulous as Marie Rothenberg and John Glover does an equally remarkable job as her troubled ex-husband, Charles. Matthew Lawrence does a fantastic job as David.

Anyone who enjoys a good docudrama will enjoy this one.

10/26/2004 Charles Rothenberg, Nonviolent Eleventh Striker Filed under: 2004 Election California Politics Crime Law by Xrlq @ 5:27 pm Today, Bill Handel of KFI pointed out that Charles Rothenberg will be released in just over three years if Proposition 66 passes. Rothenberg, you may recall, is the sweetheart who gave sleeping pills to his six-year-old son David, doused him with kerosene, and burned him very nearly to death in a motel in 1983, all to prevent his wife from getting custody. California had no three strikes law at the time, so despite the seriousness of this crime and a string of priors dating back to 1958, Rothenberg was sentenced to a whopping 13 years in prison, of which he served roughly seven.

Following his release, Rothenberg has had multiple brushes with the law, including a count of arson that did not result in an indictment, and an attempted murder charge that ended in an acquittal. Rothenberg was arrested again in 2001 and convicted for fraud and illegal possession of a firearm. Both crimes are felonies, but neither of them are "violent" or "serious" felonies, as defined by either the existing three strikes law or the watered-down version that is Prop 66. Due to the egregious nature of Rothenberg's past crime, San Francisco D.A. Terence Halinan took the unusual step of pursuing a third-strike charge against him. That charge won't stick if Prop 66 passes, however. In fact, Rothenberg would not even qualify as a second striker, as the two "violent" or "serious" offenses - arson and attempted murder - were decided in the same court proceeding. Rothenberg raised a similar challenge last year (h/t: Jeff Lewis), alleging unsuccessfully that his current charge should only count as a second strike rather than a first. Under the new law, it won't count as a strike at all, and Rothenberg will be free to burn more buildings and attempt to murder more people within three years, courtesy of the "Three Strikes and Child Protection Act of 2004."

UPDATE (4/28/05): Turns out, he won't get a three strikes conviction after all, even without that dreadful "reform."