An important story let down by farcical filmmaking, Roe V. Wade often veers into unintentional spoof territory that undercuts vital and little known facts about the abortion movement, and the monumental Supreme Court decision that reshaped reproductive rights in America.

For all of the hysteria and controversy that Roe V. Wade generated during its four-year production, the film itself is of little consequence. If a pro-choice group wanted to make a spoof of a pro-life movie, Roe V. Wade would be the result. It’s heart is in the right place, but this Cathy Allyn and Nick Loeb directed film is poorly executed in almost every facet.

Roe v Wade attempts to portray the events that led to the 1973 Supreme Court decision that ruled in favour for abortion rights in the United States. The films central figure is Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb), an abortionist who later in life would undergo an ethical and spiritual conversion and become a pro-life activist. As depicted in Roe v Wade, he is a vital part of a pro-abortion movement led by vocal abortion activist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy). His plan is two-fold: discredit the Catholic Church through a smear campaign in the media; and continuously challenge the anti-abortion law in Dallas, Texas, which would lead to a showdown in the Supreme Court. Opposing Nathanson and Lader is a Right to Life coalition led by Dr. Milfred Jefferson (Stacey Dash.)

The events of Roe V. Wade are incredibly complex and intricate, and needed an experienced filmmaker to tell the story. Neither Allyn or Loeb live up to that challenge. Aiming for the filmmaking style of Oliver Stone (JFK) and Adam McKay (Vice), Allyn and Loeb instead deliver a mess of a movie that quickly gets lost in a jumble of historical characters who hold opposing motivations.

The films script, written by Allyn, Loeb, and Ken Kushner (who also produces) is woefully amateur, especially in its inability to threads factoids into dialogue that is exposition heavy and clumsy.

The performances follow suit: Loeb fails to convincingly portray the emotional and political complexities of Nathanson’s shifting alliances; Jamie Kennedy overacts to the point of parody as Lader; and Stacey Dash puts on a confusing accent and unconvincing regal air as the esteemed, yet under looked, physician in Milfred Jefferson, the first black woman to graduate from Harvard Medical School who deserved better here.

Although set in the 1970s, a limited budget does not convince of its period bona fides. Set design looks cheap, and a bronze tone throughout proves to be more of a distraction than a convincing tool to whisk us away several decades back.

The best scenes in Roe V. Wade are those that delve into the philosophical and ethical nature of the abortion debate. Many of the factoids during these times (backed by a fact sheet on the films website) brings new life and should generate conversation about how a pivotal ruling like Roe v Wade came to be. However, Roe V. Wade the movie does little more than affirm the beliefs of people on one side of the abortion debate. More conservative movies by conservative filmmakers should be made, yet Roe V. Wade is not the example to lead by.