The March of Crime: A Dusty Trip Through Outlaw History

Is it worth it?

If you love old true crime or just want to see how they told these stories back when movies were still finding their legs, sure. Watch it. If you want a slick documentary, you’ll probably hate it. It moves like molasses and feels more like a lecture than a movie.

The March of Crime isn't really a movie in the way we think about them now. It's more of a scrapbook of the most famous gangsters of the day. Bonnie, Clyde, Dillinger—they’re all here, but they feel like cardboard cutouts.

The reenactments are... something

The staging is incredibly stiff. You can see the actors waiting for their cues. It reminded me a bit of the awkwardness in The Fighting Coward, where everyone just stands there like they're posing for a photograph instead of being in a shoot-out.

There's this one moment where they try to recreate a capture, and the 'lawmen' just sort of walk into the frame like they’re checking their mail. It’s funny in a way I don't think the director meant.

Oddly Specific Moments

• The narration is so dry it could turn a sponge into dust.
• Every time they mention J. Edgar Hoover, the music swells like he’s a superhero. It’s pretty heavy-handed.
• Some of the costumes look like they were pulled out of a bargain bin ten minutes before filming started.

I found myself wondering if this was meant to be educational or just a quick cash-in on the public's obsession with these criminals. It feels a bit like The Galloping Ghost in its pace—lots of talking, very little actual momentum.

It doesn't have the grit of a real crime story. It feels like a sanitized, school-room version of the Great Depression. You know, where everything is clean and everyone speaks in perfectly rehearsed sentences. Nobody actually talked like this, right?

Whatever, it’s a weird little artifact. If you like digging up old, forgotten cinema, give it a look. Just don't go in expecting anything close to Hamlet. It’s not that kind of party.