The family of the woman whose 1980 murder is the basis for the new Hilary Swank film, Conviction, publicly criticized the Oscar winner and the film’s other producers for not consulting with them prior to making the movie, according to Reuters. Melrose and Charlie Brow, children of the late Katharina Brow, told reporters gathered in attorney Gloria Allred’s office that their “family is being forced to relive the memory of a heinous crime.” The violent death of their mother is not depicted in the film, which the Brows have yet to see, but the family is concerned about how she will depicted. Representatives for Swank and Fox Searchlight have not yet responded to requests for comment.
Oct 14
2010
05:35 PM ET
Family upset by Hilary Swank's 'Conviction'
- Comments 25
- Add comment
Latest News
- 'American Idol': Season 11 winner is...
- 'Revenge': Join Gabriel Mann live chat now
- 'Idol' Top 2: Rate the debut singles
- 'Great Gatsby' trailer's 'Zeigfeld' folly
- 'Men in Black 3': EW movie review
- 'G.I. Joe: Retaliation' pushed to 2013
- 'On the Road': EW movie review at Cannes
- 'Moonrise Kingdom': EW movie review
The story is about the man who was WRONGFULLY convicted of the woman’s murder. Not about her. It is about a woman who completely changes her life to save her brother. The evidence clearly shows that he did not kill Katherine Brow so her family is only linked to this movie by a miscarriage of justice. Sounds like the Brow children think they would like some cash not just 15 years of an innocent man’s life.
Yes, I’m thinking they did not consult with them because the story is not about her. The fake Larry David needs to go troll somewhere else.
Yes, the movie is not about the murder itself, but the events in the movie stem from the murder. Had this woman not been murdered, this man would not have gone to jail, and the man’s sister would not have turned her life upside down to help him. As it is, the murder did happen, and it’s more an issue of sensitivity. The studio could have showed a little more respect and gone to this family saying, “Hey, we want to make this movie, and we realize this may bring up some painful memories, but the focus of the movie is going to be on this woman helping her brother.”
The woman makes no appearance in this movie, except perhaps you can just about see a woman on the ground in the tracking shot through her home.
This family should probably do better things with their time than try to steal the spotlight and whore their mother out for sweet, sweet cash.
They lost me at “told reporters gathered in attorney Gloria Allred’s office…”
Does Allred represent ever one
Gloria Allred doesn’t work for free. You can bet that if the family didn’t want money before, they sure do now that they’re in her clutches.
Absolutely! That woman is the worst sort of ambulance chaser. She used to actually do good work; now she’s just a whore for money and publicity.
I watched the “first look” of this last night and the movie isn’t about them or the woman that died; it’s about the bond between a brother and a sister and her never ending fight to get his conviction over turned. The family really has no right to this side of the story.
Jealous much?
You are an idiot sir, Hilary Swank is not married. She is not an award whore, she is a beautiful and talented actress. This story that is being told is based on the OTHER side – the family needs to know that OTHER people were affected by this tragedy. Any time I see Gloria Allred involved all credibility is lost (IMHO). I feel bad for the family that lost their mother/sister/aunt but I feel bad for the family that had to endure a false conviction. Your comments, Mr David, do make you appear to be a jealous hater.
Hilary, you are a wonderful and talented actress and I hope that you do get recognized during award season…if only to continue to bring attention to this one story and an ongoing issue.
Just for balance, who’s to say that it isn’t the family that wants money? I don’t know. Perhaps it is a bit of both–the family doesn’t want to relive the experience, and they want compensation. These things are never clearly defined. And is there some immoral ground for “taking someone’s story”, unless it is a book or something copyrighted? It is unfair to take sides when nobody really knows. In the end, Fox Searchlight will probably give them some money for their pains, they may or may not promote the movie, and this really won’t matter to anyone but the parties involved.
You have not seen the movie.How do you know what the movie like its about a man who spent 15 years in jail for a crime he did not do.
The family doesn’t have to relive the crime, by NOT seeing the movie. This is another story of nobodies trying to take advantage of a celebrity. The fact that Gloria Allred is representing them speaks volumes. Talk about a media who_. See Allred’s picture.
The movie is not about them or their mother…if this were the case, then yes they should have been consulted. When someone decides to do the rights to their mother’s side of the story, then they should say something. As it is though, this is about the man and his sister. This is his life too, so he deserves to have his story told just as much as the woman who died.
It is a movie in a theater that you will have to buy a ticket to see it. Don’t want to relive the memory, so don’t buy the ticket, don’t go see it. They are not forcing you to see it.
Has this family even seen the movie yet? For the previews I have seen it is not about the murder, but about an innocent man being inprisoned for a crime he did not commet.
if the children want money to help solve their moms murder, they should sell their own story, & should have put money, used for their crackpot lawyer, into solving the crime, then get money out of the real murderer. this man owes them nothing, not one cent. he has paid enough (for nothing).
Although the movie isn’t about the actual crime, this movie wouldn’t have happened had not their mother been murdered so I think they owed the victims family a phone call to let them know that this movie was being made. Most of you are not affected by it because it isn’t YOUR family going through this. At the end of the day whether this man was guilty or not these people lost their mother. To hear about a movie based on the man who was once accused of murdering their mother which would bring back horrible feelings for them with zero warning is disrespectful. Tact goes a long way. They didn’t need to be consulted but they should’ve been told
It would not have happened if their Mom hadn’t been killed but it would not have happened if the police hadn’t rushed to judgement and accused the wrong man. Ha was the victim in this movie. The family of the murder victim expects hollywood to solve the crime when the police in their town could do nothing but accuse the wrong person. Yes the movie might not have taken place if their Mom hadn’t died but it would not for sure have taken place if the police hadn’t rushed to judgement.
green eyed monster?
i just can not beleive the horrible comments to the brows on this wall ,what r yous all related to the waters?yes i beleive its all about the money on betty anns side !the waters have caused enough misery to a lot of people that will last a lifetime .there is so much lieing in that movie it turns my stomach.you all must just read reviews and see nothing else .kenny was a cruel man who was also very violent when drunk .oh he could be fun when he was sober or not high which wasn’t very often.and betty ann knew it thats why she always begged prople to not go to police when he beat or hurt someone ,hmmmmmm and that’s before he went to prison ,now we know why she went to such extremes .she was on the talk show last week lieing about how her brother would never break in someones house and beat them .WRONG HE DID A HOME INVASION ON A WOMAN AND ATTACKED HER HIM AND A BUDDIE OF HIS ,SO U ALL NEED TO GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT AND DO A LITTLE READING UP ON POOR KENNY WHOM THE FAMILY REALLY DIDNT WANT TO DEAL WITH WHEN HE WAS YOUNG BEFORE HE WENT TO PRISON .AND BELEIVE THIS KENNY LOOKED NOTHING LIKE THE ACTOR PORTRAYING HIM .AND HOW COME BETTY DOESNT PRACTICE LAW NOW THAT ALL IS SAID AND DONE . AND THE ONLY ONE THAT RECANTED THEIR STORY WAS HIS REAL GIRLFRIEND MARSH ,AND JEWLETTE LEWIS SHOULD HAVE MEANT THE WOMAN SHE PLAYING SHE IS SO OFF THE MARK ITS ALMOST FUNNY.SHE ONLY WENT BY WHAT BETTY ANN TOLD HER ,LEAVE THE BROW FAMILY ALONE .ALL THE MOVIE CONVICTION DID IS SLANDER PEOPLE .READ UP AND GET A LIFE
Hi, Dead Lady’s Daughter!
I think u might be a relitive to the “victim” of the “crime”. becuz u r taking this so personal, the movie was CLEARLY about a innocient man that goes to prison for 18 years of his life missing out in everything! NO MATTER how bad of a person he was growing up or whn he drank that DOES NOT make it ok for nobody to go to prison for something they did NOT DO!! IDGAF who u are or who died its NOT OK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!