Beautiful, moving film.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

.Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

The Boulder, Colorado crime scene: a murdered 6-year-old girl from an affluent family on Christmas Day, her body found in the basement of her parents' maze-like house some eight hours after they reported her missing. This begins a chain of events that leads to lies, deception, bruised egos, terminated careers, fallen reputations, lawsuits, and so much ill will and bad blood that Boulder is probably still reeling from the after-shocks of this case. Excellent docudrama, a four-hour movie for television chronicling the baffling murder investigation beginning in 1996, makes its case right from the start: that it is irrelevant how much time has transpired since the actual crime occurred (irrelevant, also, how many years have passed since this movie originally aired in 2000). A compulsively watchable and gripping tapestry of lives, it doesn't matter how resigned the viewer may be to the fact this headline-making yarn is pretty much unsolvable--it is done with enormous skill and a keen-eyed sensibility. Director Lawrence Schiller and writer Tom Torpor, who adapted Schiller's book, have an awful lot of material to sift through, and dozens of complicated characters to introduce us to, yet they do so with clarity and aplomb. It would be next to impossible to eliminate scenes or characters without leaving unanswered questions behind, so the running time is justified; still, I did grow tired of a sub-plot involving a "bottom feeder" reporter from a tabloid journal, and Kris Kristofferson's homicide detective Lou Smit never quite comes to life (Smit stood steadfastly behind the child's accused parents, and had a nifty summation of events which he proclaimed in a private session, yet much of the time we don't know where Smit stands with some of the evidence gathered--or why he seemed to believed the parents' story from the get-go). The film is frustrating and yet uncanny, well-informed and yet cloudy. The case has not been solved--and the movie isn't satisfying on an emotional level as a result--yet the release we want to get from it is transposed into mind-boggling food for thought. The large cast is superb, particularly Ken Howard as District Attorney Alex Hunter (who waged a war of words and actions with the Colorado Police Dept.) and Marg Helgenberger as the child's erratic mother. The wealthy parents, who stonewalled the police for four months and seemed to lead everyone in charge around by the hand, are two of the most fascinating murder witnesses in criminal history, and this is most likely the best examination of them we'll ever get on film.

At the beginning of this, with the obtrusive music and interminable opening, I groaned "oh no, this is gonna suck." Yet it quickly righted itself and established a good pace, the music backed off, and the director found a good way to reach a dramatic ending despite the case never being solved. Yes, we get an avalanche of characters at the beginning, and yes, that doll was absolutely ridiculous, and the constant "let us pray" scenes were a drag--but none of this seriously detracted from the movie (I'm calling it a movie because on the DVD it's a continuous 3hrs).Does it answer the question "who killed JonBenet?" No. And more importantly, it doesn't try to do so. It presents the two main theories: parents did it vs. intruder did it, and shows us how and to some extent why each of the characters supports the theory that they do. The infighting between the Boulder Police and the DA's office is brought to life (best part of the movie), Danny Shapiro's role is clarified (very muddled in the book), and we're shown exactly how the case was screwed up almost from the very beginning, by detectives that were in over their heads. Thankfully, the director also edited this down to be a tight 3hrs as opposed to Schiller's sprawling, poorly written 800pgs.High points: The autopsy: as fake as the doll was, the girl on the table looked real and gave you an idea of just how badly JonBenet had been tortured before being killed. DA Alex Hunter: we get to watch him go from hip, experienced, Boulder DA to a frazzled, hard-drinking, Boulder politician whose career is going up in smoke because the police department can't bring him an actual case. Steve Thomas/Danny Shapiro: this whole bizarre game between the BPD and the Globe's reporter on the scence is fascinating. Who's playing whom here? The detectives make fun of Shapiro, while Shapiro plays all sides against the middle. Scene editing: the scenes go on just long enough to give you a sense of why they're there, but not so long as to make you twiddle your thumbs in irritation. Lou Smit in the Ramsey House: a great presentation of the key points of the intruder theory. Location: the film was shot on the actual Boulder locations for the most part, giving it a boost of realism.LowLights: Music is annoying at the beginning: all that soppy piano stuff lends an unwanted covering of daytime soap to the early part of the film. Too many closeups: if Linda Arndt's (character, not actress) face came billowing into the screen one more time, I was going to hit FF. The director finally got out of that "dramatic closeup" mode by the last 2/3, but for a while, it was too much. "Let us pray" While I appreciate that the Ramseys may be deeply religious, 5min scenes in a church listening to a 2nd rate church choir can be yawn-inducing. There are a few too many long "let us rely on our faith" scenes. All in all, very much worth seeing. RstJ

I have read the book, "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town" which is excellent; the movie, however, is terrible. The movie begins with the morning of the kidnapping, which is the first mistake. The audience is never given a chance to know JonBenet thus, when she is found murdered, we feel nothing for it. We don't know the victim, not to mention the body in the film is beyond fake. Look closely and you will see it rocking back and forth briefly after it has been touched by a mourner.Secondly, all the pivital information is thrown in the viewer's face all at once. People who have not read the book or followed the case will be confused. Within 3 minutes, 7 characters are introduced, either in person or by mention of their name.Thirdly, like the lack of characterization of JonBenet, we know nothing of the family. All that we know is what we are told which is the number one mistake of story-telling...telling and not showing.What makes the movie so bad is the fact that it could have been so good. What is so odd, is that 7 years ago, when I was a freshman in high school, I wrote a script based on the crime (I am a film major) and oddly enough, i truly believe that my version was MUCH more emotionally charged, as it should be, after all, a 6 year old girl was murdered. And ironically enough, many of the scenes that are in this film , were actually in my script. My point: this movie seems like a 14 year old wrote it.Read the book, don't watch the movie.

It was one of the most complicated mini series I have ever seen on television. They alway say the reason they have less characters in movies is it gets too confusing. After seeing this movie I can see why. There were so many characters I couldn't figure who was who. Patsy Ramsy was great she was a real control freek. I also liked Kris Kriscroffen did a great job too.