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.
Add a Review
-
rupie16 October 2018
-
Minnesota_Reid26 October 2017The movie deals with a significant social issue, the growing trend of municipalities abusing "eminent domain" to evict lower middle class people from the homes they own to hand the land over to big corporations, in the name of urban renewal. The movie suffers a bit from "TV movie of the week" syndrome, but it is well done and the issue is timely.
The fact-based movie is grounded in one woman's story to save her home and her community. Toward the end, the movie goes a little too far afield in following irrelevant parts of her story rather than the main story line, but that's a small quibble. -
mancinibrown27 January 2019Little 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. -
Gordon-1120 August 2018This film tells the story of a woman who fights hard against the city government taking her home for development by a private corporation.
This is a poignant story, and it drives me to tears. I admire the fighters' dedication to fight for their homes. It is engaging and captivating. -
eamonn724 June 2019Decent enough movie and yes, a film that leaves you feeling for her as seen by the same type of response in the reviews, like
"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"
Bet if the net was around late 1800's the Native Americans would write similar reviews like the ones here as they have being doing that since then and acts that show why you get on with you're former masters the english so well. -
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!
-
greg-988107 June 2018If you love your home and despise heavy-handed and corrupt government, this film is for you. The actors are very believable, the story is compelling, and the cinematography is great.
-
spyderalley3 January 2021I watched today and it broke my heart. Then I looked some things up.... What they didn't say in the movie, she suggested her house be moved. They refused. After all of it, the house was moved, not demolished. I think it was 100 years old before all this even started and had been moved from another location to where it was when all of this happened. Little Pink House. Nothing was ever built on the land where the 15 house neighborhood was destroyed.
-
susanmnorth15 January 2023I read one review that felt this film was depressing. Interestingly, I found it the opposite. I found it encouraging and even somewhat uplifting because of the fight and determination that Susette Kelo (the real life woman who we meet at the end of the film who inspired the story). It opens eyes to political and big corporate deceit. It opens eyes to how our voices can be heard and the importance of the fight. This film is not about being entertained as much as it is an important one to watch. The performance are also outstanding. Not overly dramatized. Honest and to the point. Highly recommended.
-
I was fortunate enough to meet Susette Kelo before seeing the movie. It is amazing how closely Catherine Keener gets her right; her look, voice, shyness and inner strength. The movie also does an excellent job of balancing the political story with the personal one. It's a very fine line because with too much of one you'd have a documentary and too much of the other you wouldn't know what was going on. Well worth the price of admission.
-
donhauptman21 April 2018How many movies can you name that have the potential to change the world for the better - while being hugely entertaining, to boot? And how often does one find in cinemas a riveting true story about heroism, determination, and persistence? Few films these days present a principled fight for human liberty and individual rights - in this case an ordinary citizen's crusade to save her home from a powerful government's attempts to take it from her. Little Pink House is an outstanding film in all respects: top-notch performances, direction, production values. It's not a documentary but a dramatized, narrative retelling of Susette Kelo's story - a landmark case that went all the way to The Supreme Court and is still resonating today, as important as ever. I've seen this great film three times and it just gets better with every viewing. See it now, while it's in a theater.
-
timderoche26 January 2018Saw this movie at the Santa Barbara Film Festival....and can't wait for it to come to LA. Wonderful performance by the amazing Catherine Keener. And the true story will hit you in the gut. Can the government take your property and just hand it over to a Fortune 500 company because they want more taxes? The Supreme Court says they can. Everyone needs to see this.
-
ksf-216 May 2022Story of susette kelo, paramedic, who fights to keep her house, in new london connecticut. The governor and a local businessswoman want to redevelop part of the town. Near a sewage plant. They'll need to take land by eminent domain, but the homeowners don't want to sell. Get ready for a fight! Jeanne tripplehorn is charlotte, who represents the development group. They aren't using eminent domain to put up a public building... they are using the land to build a pharmaceutical plant. Charlotte is still trying to sweet talk the owners when the dirty tricks start, to get the stubborn owners out of their homes. Off to court! Directed by courtney balaker. Based on the book by jeff benedict. Good stuff! Good summary of what actually happened to everyone and the land itself, after ten years.
-
genlagreca26 May 2018An excellent, must-see film. Well acted, well directed. A riveting story about one woman's fight all the way to the Supreme Court for justice. ---Gen LaGreca
-
susan-114461 May 2018I really enjoyed this movie and realize why putting a human face on a seemingly dry legal issue is so important. Am impressed that it came from a first-time director and will definitely see it again.
-
shculshaw22 August 2019Great story told well by the director, actors and everyone else involved! Thank you for making this film!
-
random-707782 February 2020For the history for the US, federal state and local government have been able to take private property "for public use" if no reasonable alternatives . It is, in fact in the Constitution. BUT the left Supreme court justices, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, along with centrist Kennedy decided to reinterpret this and conflate a new insanely broad "public purposes" allowance of seizure with "public use." Public use meant a needed road, fire station, library, extending an airport, etc. Public purposes means anything any government entity decides is in the public interest: specifically anything that will increase the tax base. So if your home is single story, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy decided that your town, count or state can seize your home and sell it to any developer or corporation that would build something larger, be it a corporate headquarters, or just a bigger home for someone else to live in, on the basis that this increases taxes which is supposed to be a "public purpose." This documentary, while slightly uneven tells the story of the court case and the shameful decision by corporate lackeys like Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, breyer etc.
-
I found Catherine's performance to be exceptional and buoyed this film from start to finish. There is a brassiness and earthiness to her that worked well within the context of the small town setting.
The supporting actors were strong enough in their own right to be memorable and the performances by the other townspeople felt super authentic and believable.
There is a lot of charm to this movie and although it is a retelling of a true story it feels real in its own right. I was moved by the emotional speeches presented in the film and felt they retold this story in a way that was compelling and did it justice at the same time. -
taddeoblakk11 March 2019All actors are the best in the world!! Love this movie Amazing Colin Cunningham ever!!
-
medhatbesso14 January 2024I watched this film finally overwhelmed by Katherine's simple and honest performance.
This kinda of films makes you always in wondering what if I can't get rid of the trauma of relocated to another place that I don't have any memory of it.
LPH discussed this case perfectly. I mean what's the reason for being connected and tied up at your place if you don't have any good or even bad memories in it? Let's be fair and say that capitalism is the reason for evil in the whole world and none should surrounded for its greed.
It's not about selling and buying a house, it's about selling and buying yourself. Great film. -
This is a well crafted dramatization of the real life circumstances that led up to the Kelo decision, one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time. Demonstrates the evils of eminent domain amuses. I was impressed by the filmmaker's ability to humanize Kelo and craft a compelling narrative leading up to the infamous Supreme Court decision. Not only is this a good film to watch - I would describe it as a must-see! Along with civil asset forfeiture and qualified immunity, eminent domain is an evil practice that strips people of their Constitutional rights, particularly where the takings are for the benefit of private companies. The practice should be abolished.
-
garrypaulcrystal19 March 2024A film that shows that the corporations - in this case Pfizer - are the ones in charge and the governments are simply cowtowing and supporting them to the detriment of the little man, in this case men and women whose properties were demolished so that Pfizer could build on the land. Had never heard of this case - but it's well worth watching for anyone interested in social justice, or in this case, the lack of it.
Great acting from all those involved - Catherine Keener never disappoints and seems to get better in every film. The cinematography is also excellent. A gripping tale, especially for those who are unaware of this injustice - injustice seems to be something that has never troubled Pfizer. -
ts-000011 July 2023Never heard of this case & was looking for something to watch,decided to go scroll Tubi.. It is worth noting.. Go do some research for additional information,although the story is depressing it's rather eye opening.
I do feel that a documentary could of served the purpose for telling a story,even a tv movie of the week but not a Hollywood production.
Was cast decent,acting was ok & cinematography average.. Which no doubt added to the story vibe,however made the quality seem cheap.
If anything comes out of this nothing is yours if someone wants it bad enough,which is a frightening message.
It is worth seeing? Sure but don't expect a masterpiece,despite it being based on a true story.