(Early Screening) Roe V Wade - The Story Behind the Controversial Decision of the US Supreme Court

Few days ago I got an email providing me the chance to have early screening of this movie before it's officially released in the US theaters. I was intrigued by it as it was based on true story and starred some quite well known names. Without further ado, here's more on the movie.

Brief Story Line

Story was told from the point of view of Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb), a medical doctor who together with several others including his friend Lawrence Lader (Jamie Kennedy - Scream 2, Ghost Whisperer TV series) and feminist Betty Friedan (Lucy Davenport) formed abortion rights organization called NAFAR in 1969. Their aim was to ensure the woman's right of abortion legalized in the US. 

In order to do so, they supported the case where a pregnant woman was not allowed to have an abortion in Texas. 2 young lawyers named Sarah Weddington (Greer Grammer - Deadly Illusions etc) & Linda Coffee (Justine Wachsberger) filed a lawsuit citing the woman under pseudonym Jane Roe against D.A Henry Wade. The case itself was later appealed to the supreme court headed by Chief Justice Burger (Jon Voight - Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Runaway Train etc) together with other Justices.

And how would the whole case conclude? You could see them all in this surprising political legal drama movie.

End of Brief Story Line

To be honest, despite my excitement of having the opportunity to have early screening of this upcoming movie, I was a bit worried whether I could enjoy it or not, especially since it was quite heavy and the topic was something I was not familiar with. However, after passing through the first 15 minutes or so, I finally managed to grasp the idea of this movie. Basically it was to show the background story of the people behind the case and in particular how such decision was made back in 1973.

As I said above, the movie was told from the point of view of Dr. Nathanson so the early part seemed to be more of introduction about him and the NARAL. But as the story progressed, we get to see the Roe V. Wade case in the federal court (which was a bit too short to my personal opinion). It then occurred to me that the movie was focusing more on the case ruling in the supreme court. The film emphasized more on the backroom discussion, especially the Justices struggle in deciding the case, rather than the court room scenes.

Looking at the names shown during the opening credits truly surprised me as I was quite familiar with most of them. There were quite a lot of established and veteran actors who played the role of the justices. We got names like Robert Davi (Die Hard, License to Kill etc), Corbin Bernsen (L.A. Law TV series, Major League etc), John Schneider (The Dukes of Hazzard, Smallville TV series etc), William Forsythe (Raising Arizona, Extreme Prejudice etc) and even Steve Guttenberg (Police Academy movies, Three Men and a Baby etc). Jon Voight actually won the Vienna Independent Film Festival's Best Supporting Actor for his performance in here. 

Aside from those names, there was also another name that was considered part of the main cast, i.e. Stacey Dash (Clueless, Paper Soldiers etc) as the anti abortion Dr. Mildred Jefferson. Too bad she did not seem to be having too much screen time even though she was supposed to be Dr. Nathanson's counter part in the "war" between anti and pro abortion. Btw, this movie was co-directed by Nick Loeb himself and Cathy Allyn (both also served as the writers and co-producers).

After watching this film, I definitely have formed my own opinion about the ruling of this case. Not sure if it was due to the story telling which seemed a little bit heavy on one side. Nevertheless as a neutral audience, I did like the movie. It has some good quality acting (especially from the more veteran actors) and it was also quite an eye opener on this controversial case ruling.  But I did also feel there were a bit of dramatization on certain parts (which were understandable as movies based on true events generally would have it, otherwise it would be a documentary film). 

Overall if you are intrigued by the case, this film would have been an interesting option to give a better idea on the background story of how the decision was made from the point of view of Dr. Bernard Nathanson. I do not believe this movie was intended to be a complete chronicle/history of the whole case, plus fitting everything into a movie of less than 2 hours duration would not be sufficient. But at least for me, I was more knowledgeable about it than before I watched the film. 

Mike's movie moments rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

Special thanks to Nick Loeb who provided me the chance to experience this movie.

And here's the movie's trailer: