³ÉÈËXÕ¾

Rarely has a true story been so under-served by a movie.

“Freeheld,” a film about the denial of benefits to a same-sex couple, wears its heart on its sleeve but that sleeve is so threadbare the emotions never register.

It seems so sure of the emotional power of its story that it can’t be bothered with trying to dramatize it in any significant way. Top-notch actors like Julianne Moore, Ellen Page, and Michael Shannon try their best but can’t do anything with the cardboard characters they’re given.

Moore plays veteran New Jersey police officer Laurel Hester who, unbeknownst to her department, falls in love with an out-of-town woman many years her junior and eventually forms a domestic partnership with her. Ellen Page plays the young mechanic love interest Stacie Andree but neither she nor Moore are able to imbue their characters with any depth.

Moore’s cop is a little repressed and a bit controlling and Page is more carefree and unhappy about being hidden in Moore’s closet, so to speak. And that’s about it. The film’s one sex scene is so hesitant and so short &#8212 and happens fully clothed by the way &#8212 it’s as if the movie is embarrassed by its characters’ sexuality. Instead the film bends over backwards showing just how normal and regular lesbians actually can be.

After we’ve awkwardly established that lesbians are just like the rest of us &#8212 you can still be a good cop and be gay. Who knew? &#8212 the social significance of this story comes to the fore.

When Detective Hester, out of the blue, gets a dire medical diagnosis, she discovers she’s not allowed to pass on her pension benefits to her partner, because they’re not legally married. She passionately makes her case to the Board of Freeholders in her town of Ocean City, New Jersey.

These Freeholders have about as much gravity as the council members who voted to ban dancing in “Footloose.” Their position is so hard to defend that they come across more as clowns than serious people with a case to make. In fact, everyone who fights the benefits extension just comes across as a jerk.

It is a sign of how quickly social mores shift in this country that Hester’s very public fight occurred as recently as 2005 -2006. Less than a decade later, we not only allow for what she fought so hard for, but same-sex marriage is actually the law of the land. The dramatic failings of this movie might not have been so glaring if we were still in the midst of the fight, but because the matter has more or less been decided so firmly in Hester’s favor, we have a right to expect more insight and nuance from a film.

I’m sure it must have been beyond poignant in real life to watch a woman fight for her rights as she’s also fighting for her life (and losing). But in this movie, it just comes off as maudlin. This might cut it for the Lifetime Channel, but for a Hollywood movie, Detective Hester deserved better.