Little Pink House is based on the true story of Susette Kelo, who was threatened of eviction from her home by the city of New London, Connecticut. It follows her from purchasing her house, to being pressured to sell and finally through legal battles.
Miss Kelo is portrayed admirably by Catherine Keener who gives a gritty, raw performance. The situation tearing her apart can be felt. Similarly the majority of the rest of the cast are up to the task.
Unfortunately the script and directing feel very much like a TV movie. Some scenes are just over the top in whether they could happen or not. The woman portrayed as the villain in the film, head of the Development Corporation trying to take the land is given some ridiculous lines, and has no shades of grey to her.
It's unfortunate that what is a moving story of the ability of the US government's ability to seize land is left in such mediocre hands. There was promise here, just unfulfilled.
Little Pink House
2017
Action / Drama
Little Pink House
2017
Action / Drama
Plot summary
A small-town nurse named Susette Kelo emerges as the reluctant leader of her working-class neighbors in their struggle to save their homes from political and corporate interests bent on seizing the land and handing it over to Pfizer Corporation. Susette's battle goes all the way to the US Supreme Court and the controversial 5-4 decision in Kelo vs. City of New London gave government officials the power to bulldoze a neighborhood for the benefit of a multibillion-dollar corporation. The decision outraged Americans across the political spectrum, and that passion fueled reforms that helped curb eminent domain abuse.
Uploaded by: FREEMAN
Director
Top cast
Tech specs
720p.WEB 1080p.WEBMovie Reviews
Solid acting let down by bad direction
despotism right here in America
This is somewhat of a depressing film to watch, as we all know the ending, and it's not a happy one. The highest court in the land basically said it was fine for government to seize the private property of Party A and give it to Party B if the net result was more revenue for the government doing the seizing. Stalin, Mao, Mussollini and Hitler would have hailed the decision. The film itself is a bit understated and there are no top tier actors involved, but the story is told well and everyone acquits himself well here. It is worth noting that, in the final Supreme Court decision it was those nasty and mean-spirited right-wing conservatives - O'Connor, Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia - who sided with Ms. Kelo, while all the liberal champions of the poor and downtrodden - Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy and Stevens - said it was fine for the government to seize working people's private property.
Engrossing Acting...and Well Done Presentation of the Law
This film gets to you. As a retired constitutional lawyer, I'm usually hard on Hollywood's typical cutting-corners presentations of legal procedures and issues. And as a life-long performer of various kinds, I usually view acting with a critical eye. This film did a great job of both: the actors playing Susan Kelo and her boyfriend were so believable & created so much empathy for the characters, that it was actually a wrench to see photos of the story's real-life principals at the end, to be reminded by those that it *was* acting. The writer and director did an excellent job of making the substance of complex & very serious legal issues accessible, and the procedural steps clear and comprehensible. Even the scene of a Supreme Court argument, usually something very, very difficult to distill simply, was tight, succinct and clear. Throughout, the human elements of the story predominated: what eminent domain did to the people of one neighborhood -- and the human elements were very engrossing. The villains may seem to outside eyes just a slight touch caricatured, but I am sure that, through the eyes of Susan Kelo and her neighbors, the bureaucrats, politicians & functionaries who knowingly stole their homes, deserved every bit of those portrayals. An excellent job overall!