Little Pink House

The 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.

If 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.

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.

This 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.

For 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.