There was good potential in the concept of a lawyer traveling back in time to examine famous women and legal cases. Unfortunately, the historical situations were purely comical, losing any semblance of a serious message about women through the ages.
Charlie is the supremely confident attorney who bumps her head that starts her on a whirlwind tour of the past. She meets up with such luminaries as Joan of Arc, George Sand, Olympe de Gouges, and Marie Curie. But the historical sequences were neither creative nor substantial biographical portraits.
Instead of fleshing out the significant instances of women's subservient role in history, Charley took advantage of her opportunities to basically ignore Joan of Arc, help to send Olympe de Gouges to the guillotine, and to sleep with Napoleon!
At the end, the filmmakers sought to impose a message about women's rights. But it rang hollow due to the film's prevailing style of light comedy and farce. How could we take the final court scene seriously? This was a lackluster and most unfulfilling film experience.
Charlie is the supremely confident attorney who bumps her head that starts her on a whirlwind tour of the past. She meets up with such luminaries as Joan of Arc, George Sand, Olympe de Gouges, and Marie Curie. But the historical sequences were neither creative nor substantial biographical portraits.
Instead of fleshing out the significant instances of women's subservient role in history, Charley took advantage of her opportunities to basically ignore Joan of Arc, help to send Olympe de Gouges to the guillotine, and to sleep with Napoleon!
At the end, the filmmakers sought to impose a message about women's rights. But it rang hollow due to the film's prevailing style of light comedy and farce. How could we take the final court scene seriously? This was a lackluster and most unfulfilling film experience.