The Lindbergh Kidnapping Case (1976 TV Movie) User Reviews

Pretty Good True-Crime Drama

[rmax304823 · 8/10 · 13 August 2003]

This is the sort of thing that TV does rather well sometimes, a more or less true story with competent (but either over-the-hill or just-beginning) performers, no expensive special effects, and time enough for attention to detail if not one thousand takes per shot.

It's quite well done, a good example of the form. The cast is particularly good: Walter Pigeon as the somewhat biased judge, Martin Balsam as the raffish but sloppy defense counsel, David Spielberg as the waspy headline-grabbing prosecutor, Dean Jagger as an expert witness on carpentry, Cliff De Young as a cool, composed, remote Lindbergh (true to life, that is), and equally talented performers in multiple smaller roles. Anthony Hopkins is superb. He captures Hauptmann's brittleness and anxiety perfectly in a fine performance.

Did he do it? The movie doesn't tell us, although the final impression we're left with is that he is in fact guilty. His story of how he came by the marked bills in the ransom payoff is about as implausible as anyone could imagine, the worst Fisch story you ever heard.

Yet the prosecution's case was full of gaping holes and minor to major weaknesses, although the film doesn't make this clear. For instance, Colonel Lindbergh is called to a Bronx police station to listen to the members of a lineup shout out the kidnapper's words and try to identify the criminal. Lindbergh does so promptly and positively. Yet of the five men in the lineup, Hauptman is the only one with a German accent, which the police already knew the kidnapper had. And Lindbergh must identify the voice from the other side of a closed door. And the voice is one that he heard only from a distance, and two years earlier. Martin Balsam as Riley, defending Hauptmann, mentions none of this in his cross examination. The same is true for Joseph Cotton, who has never seen the kidnappers and who has earlier refused to identify Hauptmann's voice as that of the criminal. Two years is a long time to identify a muffled voice heard speaking only a few sentences on a dark night two years ago. And Spielberg's treatment of Hopkins on the witness stand is inexcusable. There were newsreel cameras in the courtroom at the time and Spielberg uses every dramatic trick in the book to influence the jury. What a performance! And afterward he does everything except face the cameras, flourish his cape, and take a bow. It's impossible to believe that such shenanigans could take place in a courtroom today, even the most lenient.

This was the original "crime of the century." Lindbergh was an icon. There were songs written about him ("Lucky Lindy") and dances named after him (the "Lindy Hop"). Hopewell, New Jersey, the scene of the kidnapping must have been a small quiet town in 1932 because it was still a small quiet town in 1972 when I lived nearby. The Hunterdon County Courthouse in Flemington however is almost unrecognizable. The building is the same but any view of it from the street is blocked by the shade trees that have matured since the movie cameras of 1934 captured it on film. Those same movie cameras show us a mass of onlooking, souvenier hackers, and journalists, screaming and swaying back and forth, a herd of African wild dogs savaging its prety.

The movie leaves one wondering about things like this: Dean Jagger's carpentry expert testifies that a board found at the scene of the crime was once part of the same larger plank that yielded a board built into the attic of Hauptmann's garage. Our technology is now so advanced that almost certainly more information could be gleaned from those two boards. I wonder where that evidence is now?

Pretty crummy affair

[rmax304823 · 8/10 · 28 September 2003]

Seeing this film recently prompted me to do some reading about the case and the incident it was based on. I've also seen "Crime of the Century" and one or two documentaries on the case. And I ran into a big problem with all of the films after reading Ludovic Kennedy's 1996 Penguin Paperback, "Crime of the Century," originally 1983. Now, I recognize editorial opinion when I see it because I've been involved in scientific research for about thirty years and scientists are a heck of a lot more skilled at covering up their tracks than Brit journalists like Kennedy. So, yes, unquestionably Kennedy believes Hauptmann to be innocent and this conviction influences his prose style and his interpretation of some of the facts. But the facts themselves are so compelling -- some of the tampered documents are reproduced here -- as to leave us with MORE than just a reasonable doubt about Hauptmann's guilt.

I won't go into this in detail except to say that the ACLU would blow a gasket over a media event like this case, one in which the chief defense counsel was a drunk and one of the two eyewitnesses placing Hauptmann in New Jersey at the time was an 87-year-old man who was dug up by the prosecution more than a year after the fact and would probably be considered legally blind today.

But I do want to make one comment about this film. Viz., although he does not appear in this film or any of the documentaries, there was a living human being named Isidore Fisch who was part of a group of friends that included Hauptmann. He was involved in several shady schemes and when he left for Germany, where he died of pneumonia, he owed a lot of money to a lot of people. There is no evidence that Fisch was involved in the kidnapping. The bills were outlawed gold certificates, practically unusable, and anyone could have come into possession of them in some street transaction, buying them for a few cents on the dollar.

This movie, like the documentaries I've managed to catch, pretty much present Fisch as a fictional figure, a character made up on the spot by Hauptmann in a state of panic, which he definitely was not. Seeing Idisore Fisch on the screen as his acquaintances saw him, smooth and guarded, might have left a different impression on the viewer. As far as that goes, there are snapshots of him available which I've never seen used in any of the films about the case.

It doesn't help that some people still consider Hauptmann guilty because, some sixteen years earlier in Germany, he once used a ladder to commit a burglary, or that the special symbols used in the kidnapping notes somehow resemble the insignia of Hauptmann's army unit in World War I, twenty-two years earlier. So what? The guy was fried. It wouldn't happen today unless it were carried out entirely by people who just like to fry somebody once in a while when they're upset.

Tour de Force by Hopkins

[shark-43 · 8/10 · 7 August 2001]

I was a teenager when I first saw this on TV and was blown away by this unknown actor who played the accused kidnapper. Hopkins performance is amazing. He also did fantastic work around the same time in the great mini-series QBVII. The film is a bit slow and meandering, but the subject matter is gripping, the acting is well done and again, a first rate piece of work by Sir Anthony Hopkins.

Significant piece of history.

[Doctor_Bombay · 19 April 1999]

It can be disturbing sometimes, to see how some sides of our society have deteriorated in the 1990's. In the 1930's the kidnapping/killing of American hero aviator Charles Lindberg's baby represents a low point in our humanity.

Telling this story is tough, particularly since the evidence was all circumstantial. Whereas the 1996 film `Crime of the Century' approaches the after-the-fact investigation, with a perspective that Bruno Hauptmann (executed for the crime) indeed may have been wrongfully convicted, this film (from 1976) pursues a more clinical, step-wise, investigative approach. The dictum here seems to be to substantiate the verdict within the bounds of historical accuracy.

Nice turns by Cliff DeYoung as Charles Lindbergh, and Anthony Hopkins for his portrayal of Hauptmann (for which he won an EMMY). The presentation is a bit dry, confusing, and long (148mins). You might want to find a nice supplemental text to help you better understand the main players and the chronology of events.

But if you're unfamiliar with much of the circumstances you will definitely want to take a look.

Slow start, fascinating case

[HotToastyRag · 6/10 · 12 September 2022]

I'm so happy for Joseph Cotten, getting a resurgence in his career in his sunset years. After Soylent Green, he acted in Airport '77, A Delicate Balance, The Lindbergh Kidnapping Case, and Twilight's Last Gleaming. In this courtroom tv drama, he has a very prominent role, arguably the second lead following Charles Lindbergh himself (although Anthony Hopkins won an Emmy for Lead Actor). You'll also see other old timers in the supporting cast, like Dean Jagger and 79-year-old Walter Pidgeon as the judge. Martin Balsam plays a very good lawyer - as he should, since he'd had so much experience playing lawyers since 1957. He's the defense attorney with his work cut out for him, defending the German immigrant Anthony Hopkins as the alleged kidnapper and baby killer.

Anthony had a couple of great scenes on the witness stand, but my main complaint with the movie was the lack of emotion with the other leads. Cliff De Young and Sian Barbara Allen, the Lindberghs, never seemed upset by their situation. In one scene, Cliff was seen eating breakfast while talking on the phone about a ransom note. How could he possibly eat during such a conversation? They were both far too calm at every stage of the film, begging the question as to why. If they weren't simply bad actors, perhaps there was more to the story than the film told.

If you don't know every detail of the case, trial, and outcome, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat. It may be slow-going at first, but the second half of the film (segmented out at "the trial") is fascinating and fast-paced. There are definite messages the filmmakers put across, such as mob mentality and anti-death penalty, and the screenplay is very intriguing. One could argue it raises more questions than answers, and if you're inspired, you could become completely consumed with the real-life case and its alternative theories.

Reasonable but overlong

[tonyjackie · 6/10 · 27 July 2008]

I found this to be a reasonable telling of a true story that gripped America in the thirties but it was definitely overlong.I do usually enjoy courtroom dramas but must admit that this isn't at the top of the tree for me.For some reason I found it to be less than gripping and I also found the editing at times to be abrupt and a bit confusing.

On the plus side,the acting is pretty good and Anthony Hopkins did well in a role that made it difficult for anyone to have any sympathy for his character.You did get the feeling that some things were never discovered such as was the child murdered by just one person and this gave the movie a flat almost empty ending.

Not too bad I suppose but at least thirty minutes too long.

Extremely accurate

[FlushingCaps · 10/10 · 3 February 2011]

If you've read Jim Fisher's book The Lindbergh Case, you likely feel certain that they executed the right person for this crime. It seems with every big-time crime there are people eager to write books claiming the wrong person was charged or convicted. Only sometimes is that the case. I have read several books on this case, including the piece of fiction called The Airman and the Carpenter, which has so many holes in its claims I thought I had Swiss cheese in my hands when I read it.

I have also been to the New Jersey State Police Museum, and seen some of the evidence, including the actual ladder. Hauptmann's sneering "I am a carpenter" line got a lot of attention, but the actual ladder was rather cleverly constructed, with three sections folding up to a size that could fit into a regular automobile, yet reach the second story window. Because of the thin wood that couldn't quite hold the weight of the kidnapper and the dead infant, it snapped. It was constructed that way to make it weigh only 38 pounds (I believe was the figure), making it easier to carry, which was necessary for the crime. It would take a good carpenter to build such a clever ladder.

For those who want to claim Hauptmann was working with others, consider how he quickly accepted Condon's offer of $50,000 instead of the $70,000 he was supposed to deliver. Anyone working with others would refuse, knowing his partner(s) would insist he make up the difference--"Sure they only paid $50 G's. Fine. I believe you. But my share is still $35,000, so you'll have to settle for $15,000 Mister-Always-Eager-to-Bargain." The kidnapper who collected the ransom had to be acting alone. Indeed, if a group of people had been involved, why would they settle for a mere $50,000? That's a large sum for one man in 1932, but not that much for a group of six--which is how many Cemetery John told Condon were involved.

The evidence is overwhelming against Hauptmann. When you read how the baby was dragged out of his crib by his head, you cannot help but believe he was killed first--to prevent any attention-getting cries. That makes the crime of murder premeditated. Why would one man, a loner by all accounts, feel the need to involve others in his scheme when he could easily carry it out by himself? There is no evidence at all that anyone other than Hauptmann was involved.

As for the movie, the portrayals are wonderful. I particularly liked the way Sian Barbara Allen portrayed Mrs. Lindbergh, and Cliff De Young seemed "spot on" with his portrayal of Col. Lindbergh. Joseph Cotton made a most convincing Dr. Condon as well. I think I understand the doctor's unusual quirks better than I did after all my reading.

Some aspects of the case are skipped, and some scenes are condensed from two in real life to one in the film. Otherwise, you'd have a 22-hour film. But what they showed was extremely accurate, matching the facts of the case. If there is one scene that seemed absolutely unbelievable, it was the people outside the courtroom selling miniature "kidnap ladders." But I remember learning that this really happened in my high school history class.

I love films that portray history in a realistic manner. While this film wasn't at all perfect, it was extremely well done and gives the viewer the feeling he is witnessing history.

The Kidnapping Murder That Will Not Die

[theowinthrop · 10/10 · 22 October 2006]

Who kidnapped Charles Lindbergh Jr. in March 1932 from his home in Hopewell, New Jersey, and in kidnapping him apparently killed him, has never been totally settled. If it was, regular movies, or television movies like this one, or novels and plays and movies suggested by the story (like MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS), or serious new studies on the case every decade would not appear. In my own criminal history library I have at least three studies on it, and I do not own every one (another board commenter mentions Ludovic Kennedy's book, THE AIRMAN AND THE CARPENTER, which I don't have, nor do I have Anthony Scarduto's book from the 1970s - both are leading titles in the "Hauptman was framed/Hauptman was a fall guy" theories).

My own opinion (for what it is worth) is that Hauptmann was involved. That does not make him the primary planner or agent in the crime. I would like to know more about others involved in the case, like Isidor Fisch (Hauptmann's mysterious roomer, who "left" the ransom money that was traced to Hauptmann - but it wasn't all of the ransom money, and most of that money has never been traced!). Or Oliver Whateley, the butler at the Lindbergh house, or Violet Sharpe, the servant who killed herself. Or Betty Gow. There are others I can think of, but whose names escape me.

This movie basically stuck to the main outline of the events as are popularly known. Certain details that have since been revealed (the fact that Dr. Condon's telephone number was written on a wooden board in Hauptmann's ceiling by a reporter covering the story, for example), were not mentioned - I wonder if they would have been. But given it's flaws, it is a good film and makes some valid points for Hauptmann not getting a fair trial.

One has to place his 1935 trial into proper context. In the 1930s the rules of criminal and civil procedure in most of the U.S. were still in the air. In 1932 the Supreme Court (in what was considered a surprising victory for liberalism at that time) overturned the death sentence convictions in the "Scottsboro" Rape trial in Alabama and ordered a new trial. The reason was lack of adequate representation for the African-Americna defendants. I say it was a surprising victory, in that the decision was not written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, or Benjamin Cardozo, or even Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, but by that highly revered spokesperson for "laissez faire" in government, George Sutherland, who was furious at the racially charged unfairness of the trial.

Hauptmann could not claim racial bias (although one wonders if by 1935 his German ancestry may have made him less liked due to the Nazis and Hitler). But his counsel, Edward Reilly, was an elderly ladies man and alcoholic - once a good trial lawyer, but now a hack. Hauptmann got this attorney, apparently, by agreeing to publish a statement for the Hearst newspapers (Hearst hired Reilly). This was not unusual. The notorious conman, member of Parliament, and magazine editor Horatio Bottomley footed the bill for counsel for Dr. Hawley Crippen, in return for a final article from Crippen. The atmosphere of the trial was half-carnival/half-lynch mob. People bought "models" of the ladder that was used as souvenirs outside the courthouse.

Hauptman is well played by Anthony Hopkins, who looks very much like the German carpenter. He really comes into his own in the second hour of the film. The first hour is dominated by Joseph Cotton as Dr. John Conlon, the school principal who willingly got involved in the kidnapping in the hope of getting the child of America's hero back. Cotton could see the humor in the self-important Conlon, such as in his declaration in court that he lives in the prettiest of the five boroughs of New York City: the Bronx (as though the New Jerseyans really care). Cliff De Young does well as Col. Lindbergh, trying to keep a level head in the dizzy investigation, but cruelly, silently, suffering from first not knowing where his son is, and then learning the truth. Martin Balsam does well as the hack Reilly. Dean Jagger, as wood expert Arthur Koehler, is treated unfairly, as a figure of confusion and boredom (most students of the case find Koehler's examination of the history of the ladder's wood one of the finest examples of expert testimony in court up to that time). Laurence Luckinbill portrays Hauptmann's last chance, New Jersey Governor Harold Hoffman, as a skeptical critic as the trial, who tries to give the convicted man more time for rational review of the evidence. In real life it ended Hoffman's political career (until a later appointment in the 1940s and 1950s handling pensions led to Hoffman committing massive embezzlement before he was caught and died).

Certainly not the last word on the case, but certainly worth watching.

Flat...Star-Sprinkled TV-Movie...No New Insights...Anthony Hopkins "Emmy"...Slightly Above Average

[LeonLouisRicci · 5/10 · 18 August 2023]

Full of Familiar Faces that Don't Do Much to Raise this Above Another Look-Back at the Infamous "Celebrity" Murder/Kidnapping Trial of the "Lindbergh Baby" with the Accused "Bruno Richard Hauptman" (Anthony Hopkins), a German Immigrant.

Although Hopkins is Excellent, His Screen-Time is Very Limited and He is More of a Supporting Actor even though He Won the Emmy for a Prime-Time Lead.

It's a Rather Dull Affair, because first of all, Most Folks Know the Complete Story, and this Version of the Events Shows Nothing New, is a Bit Flat All Around.

It Goes to Great Pains to Translate the Ridiculous, Riotous Rigamarole that Became Known as the "Cult of Celebrity".

With Mobs on the Street Chanting and Selling Souvenirs (like little ladders with the Baby's face glued on...just $1.00), and Along with the "Scopes 'Monkey' Trial" Showcased just How-Low People, when Mobbed-Up, Could Behave.

Joseph Cotton Makes an Impression as the Flamboyant "Condon", a Citizen who just Wants to "Help" and Gets Caught-Up in the Eye of the Hurricane.

None of the Other Name Actors Contribute Much, and Perhaps Worst of All Cliff De Young and Sian Barbara Allen as Charles and Mrs. Lindbergh are Non-Entities and Seem Almost Vacant to the Proceedings.

If You Don't Know the Story, it's...

Worth a Watch

If You are Familiar with it All, the 2 and a Half Hours is a Waste of Time.

Why would anybody believe Hauptman didn't do it?

[AlsExGal · 9/10 · 30 November 2021]

This TV movie follows the facts of the case pretty faithfully. Charles Lindbergh's oldest child is kidnapped from one of his homes - scooped right out of his crib without the crime being seen or heard. Lindy pays a ransom only to find out the baby was probably killed soon after if not during his kidnapping, and two years pass before serial numbers that were part of the ransom are circulated by Bruno Hauptman and he is arrested for the crime.

The trial portion of the film shows, to me, irrefutable evidence - 14K of the 50K ransom at Hauptman's home, the balance of the amount invested with a broker. He quit his job the day the ransom was paid. The phone number and address of go between Dr. Condon scribbled on a wall in Hauptman's house, and an expert witness saying that the ladder used in the kidnapping was made from the same wood found in Hauptman's garage. Hauptman said the ransom money came from a business partner who went back to Germany and died of a lingering illness. But that business partner was indigent and lacked proper medical care precisely because of that. Why would he not have taken his money to Germany with him to get proper care?

I guess it is not that Hauptman does not look guilty, it is just the lingering doubts about everybody else - The Lindberghs suddenly decided to stay in their country home that night. Did Hauptman just get lucky or did he have inside information? Prior to Hauptman's arrest one of the servants in the Morrow household - Lindbergh's in-laws - killed herself rather than be questioned about the crime again. And then finally, decades later, Lindbergh himself turned out to have beliefs and actions - a belief in eugenics and a secret life with children by multiple women - that has tarnished his flying ace reputation.

It seems the producers are trying to get an anti death penalty message shoe horned in here, with dialogue from the New Jersey governor who delayed Hauptman's execution several times as well as a psychiatrist who wanted his sentence commuted to life so Hauptman could be studied. Then there is the crowd which is shown around the prison the night of the execution shouting for death only to go completely silent when it is announced Hauptman is dead. This was made about the time the Supreme Court reinstituted the death penalty in the US, so perhaps that is the reason it is in there.

This is very well scripted and acted by not only the actors of the time, but some old Hollywood names - Joseph Cotten as Dr. Condon, Walter Pidgeon as the judge, Dean Jagger as one of the first expert witnesses, and Keenan Wynn as an aide to the governor.

Thought Provoking

[harry-76 · 23 December 2003]

It was a good thing that this enactment began directly with the crime itself, rather than lengthy Lindbergh background information. Hero parade footage under the opening credits sufficed.

The viewer was plunged into the night of the kidnapping, which was meticulously presented, as was every aspect of this torturous event.

One became aware of the media circus that ensured, spurred on by an invasive press and "nosey" public. One was struck by the absurdity of so many people reaching their own conclusions without being privy to actual case evidence.

What was particularly disturbing was the re-enactment of a capital punishment crowd brandishing its "eye for an eye" primitive philosophy. Likewise, was the extreme consequences offered by the price of fame.

A worthy cast included several veteran actors, bringing great feeling to their roles. Despite its over-length, the drama maintained interest.

The ending credits admitted to the story's being "based" on fact, with "some characters and incidents fictional." Just where the lines of demarcation occurred left one hanging regarding full script credibility (ironically, I caught this on the "True Stories" channel).

For a general background of this highly publicized case, this enactment provided useful informative.

Ninety years have passed. We're still discussing it.

[mark.waltz · 8/10 · 9 February 2022]

Two world wars, the disaster of a luxury liner struck by an iceberg, a dirigible exploding in mid-air, silent star scandals, sudden deaths of young major movie atars, prohibition and the kidnapping of the baby of one of America's greatest heroes. Headlines certainly were busy describing the horrors of the world during the first 50 years of the twentieth century. The kidnapping of Charles Lindbergh Jr. Set call shock waves, brought out all the lunatics stalking the family, and got ruthless press attention that was only a shadow of ruthless press attention t9 come.

This is more about the criminal investigation than the actual family, and I wasn't convinced by Cliff DeYoung as Lindbergh Sr. Until the discovery of the baby's whereabouts, I felt he wasn't reacting to the kidnapping realistically at all. Anthony Hopkins, disguising his first scene in a graveyard, is not seen until an hour into the film. As Bruno Hauptmann, he creates a villain that unlike Hannibal Lechter had one distinguishable factor. He was real. The German immigrant is detained out of the blue after evidence points towards him, and the events surrounding his arrest are even more scandalous than the actual kidnapping and discovery of the baby's corpse.

An All-Star cast gets together to dramatize this horrific situation that was nearly 50 years old at the time, and even then, there were debating whether or not this was actually the truth. Tony Roberts, Joseph Cotten, Walter Pidgeon, Keenan Wynn, Martin Balsam and Laurence Luckinbill are major names in the ensemble. Also included is daytime legend Denise Alexander, chewing up the scenery as a paranoid maid who may or may not have been involved in the kidnapping. I found her scenes unintentionally funny, a far cry from her brilliant performances as Dr. Lesley Webber on "General Hospital".

Hopkins, a well-respected actor, was not the superstar that he would become many years later, and he gives a very direct performance that deservedly won him an Emmy. The excellent script points out issues of the scandal starved public that made your worst nightmare neighbor seem decent in comparison. At two and a half hours long, it covers every detail and is never so slow to the point that you wish it would just end. While not without minor flaws, it captures the period brilliantly and keeps the viewer intrigued while sitting in the privacy of their own home where they are not storming the homes of innocent homes or the outside of courtrooms looking for dirt, whether it be true or not.

Still unsolved case, extremely accurate mediatic drama!!

[elo-equipamentos · 8/10 · 22 October 2023]

Buz Kulik produced and directed this famous and still unsolved case over Lindbergh's kidnapping baby in early thirties, the American hero suffers too much with the press at your neck during the investigation and trial that ends up move on to England to have a peace for his family, this picture bring the audience since the night of kidnapping until the supposedly German kidnaper Bruno Richard Hauptmann (Anthony Hopkins) at last has been executed on electric chair.

Also bring step by step all investigation process, how was the modus operandi of "John" using a go-between Dr. Condon (Joseph Cotten) to send his message to Lindbergh (Cliff De Young) also by Bronx's newspaper and sneaking away to deliver the ramson and get his baby back at cemetery where Dr. Condon face-to-face the man self-called "John", sadly he didn't bring the baby as planned, thus Dr. Condon recedes letting at Lindbergh's hands the final decision if deliver the ramson or not, he just suggest hand over 50.000 dollar to got the baby in another place as "John" offers for security reasons.

Well the rest everybody knows the baby was found dead nearby the house, aftermaths the police's intelligence squad track down the marked money found some bills at Bronx area, reaching in the carpenter German immigrant Bruno Richard Hauptmann at your home, also finds out 14.000 dollars of ramson at your car garage, the reputable lawyer Edward J Reilly (Martin Balsan) is hired as defense attorney in the case, the Governor Hall Hoffman (Lawrence Luckinbill) assures by any means appointing a hard line Lawyer David Wilentz (David Spielberg) led the prosecution.

This case is far away to be solved, firstly is quite sure that Hauptmann didn't have a fair trial whatsoever, the press tries helping him hiring the Lawyer, therefore this man has a flamboyant life with many young women on those high society circle as the movie wants imply, worst the massive voice of streets on crowed people yelling in front of Courthouse had a pressure on the jury, the casting with veteran actors is noteworthy as Dean Jagger, Warter Pidgeon, Joseph Cotton, Keenan Wynn, Tony Roberts and the newbie Cliff De Young in very convincing portrait of Col. Lindbergh, a fabulous TV movie, hidden in the dust of past, hard to find really, just a good print at Youtube.

Thanks for reading

Resume:

First watch: 1986 / How many: 3 / Source: TV-Youtube / Rating: 8.