|Index||2 reviews in total|
This was actually a very good movie. Based on a true story(I think) it is about a woman who sues her husband's mistress for breaking up her marriedge. It's a really good movie-the beginning drags a little, but it steadily picks up momentum and raises alot of interesting questions. This is a movie that might appeal to many, I liked it, not just because I like court movies but because I admired the wife SO much and the empowering coarse of action she took. I enjoy movies about remarkable people who fight for what they believe in. The movie constantly changes from court scenes to the events leading up to the suit to people chatting in a diner about their feelings on the issue. I'd solidly recomend watching this movie, it was well done.
In this fact-based story set in North Carolina, Dot Hutlemeyer finds out her
husband Joe, an insurance executive, has been cheating on her for three
years with his secretary Lynn. She sues under the alienation of affection
law, a 200-year-old statute which, ironically, was written to protect men at
a time when women were treated as property.
The movie opens with a discussion of the court case in a restaurant, and the story is told in flashbacks. First we see how Dot and Joe met at a dance club, then we see home movies, and then Lynn is introduced as a wallflower who has an unhappy marriage and wishes her life was like Joe's. The movie goes back and forth between the lively restaurant discussions and scenes from the past, and eventually we see court testimony, which leads to still more flashbacks (and don't think we won't go back to the restaurant).
Joe and Lynn began their relationship after Joe was promoted to head of his company's Burlington office and Lynn started trying to look sexy. Circumstances may or may not have required them to travel together. Eventually, Lynn became a vice president, though her duties didn't seem to change. Dot was clueless, but the office workers started gossiping.
This movie was nothing special. Park Overall gave a good performance as the jilted wife, and Laura Innes did pretty well as the mistress. Both lawyers did a fine job in closing arguments. But if not for the restaurant scenes, the movie would have been nothing more than mediocre. Still, going back and forth from restaurant to courtroom to flashbacks was confusing.
There was some comedy, in the restaurant as well as the office. At least one scene recalled those Diet Coke commercials where the construction worker took his shirt off. And in church, a pastor preached on the evils of gossip while church members whispered to each other. One of the guilty parties thought the sermon was the best she ever heard.
This movie is worth seeing, just because it is yet another case of a woman standing up and fighting for a cause she believes in.
|Plot summary||Ratings||External reviews|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|