Little Pink House

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.

I 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.

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.

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.

Never 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.