Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

ShelbyTMItchell Whether you believe in Bruno Richard Hauptmann's innocence or guilt. As pros are that he says that his wife, Anna was with him the March 1st when the Lindbergh baby was kidnapped and body found in a ditch by a truck driver. Or that like one reviewer says that he was out of work and begin to spend a lot on expensive things and even sent his wife to Germany as he was a petty criminal after serving in WWI stealing stuff and being in prison for robbery. He illegally came to the USA, when the third time was a charm as he was caught two other times. As those are the consBut really trying to portray the kidnapper and murderer of the baby, as he had a child of his own, a boy with Anna. In a sympathetic light. Really what where the movie producers and director thinking?As police corruption and that of beating suspects like Hauptmann and that of feeling pressured by the public to find someone, anybody. Even though I admit that I did not feel bad for Hauptmann, as IMHO he did it with the money and had possibly had an accomplice but that person was not arrested. But still, you feel bad for his wife turned widow Anna and she was so loyal to him to the end. She died in 1994 proclaiming her husband was railroaded to the electric chair in 1936.But Liberal Hollywood wants to make a sympathetic portrayal of a murderer. Really?! What about the victim?

dtucker86 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.

richards-5 This is a pretty shameless piece of film-making. There is absolutely no hard evidence to support the film's flat claim that Bruno Hauptmann was entirely innocent, and most accounts of the Lindbergh kidnapping case, even those which cast doubt on his conviction, suggest that he was an arrogant, boorish man, not the kindhearted saint presented here. It's as unscrupulously manipulative as Ludovic Kennedy's original book, which has the temerity, in a work of non-fiction, to tell us what people were thinking about - and more than 60 years ago at that. There is, similarly, no back-up offered for the vilification of several of those responsible for Hauptmann's conviction. There are plenty of reasons to view the case with alarm, and to believe that Hauptmann was the victim of a miscarriage of justice (which doesn't necessarily mean he was innocent). To present so biased and distorted an account of the case does no good to the cause of getting at the facts. Stick with 1976's "The Lindbergh Kidnapping Case", which sustains a neutral viewpoint - and is far more disturbing.

George Parker "Crime of the Century" is a fictional recounting the story of the Lindberg kidnapping. I presumes the innocence of Hauptman (Rea), the alleged kidnapper. It could have left the audience in question of Haputman's innocence thereby aligning it with the 60 year old controversy. It could have even set forth the compelling notion that the Lindberg baby lives today, but it does not. Instead it walks us through the legal process showing the case to be a colossal miscarriage of justice. Hence, "Crime..." is little more than a journeyman flick which attempts to capitalize on the infamy of the crime. An enjoyable watch for those interested in the notorious case.