GetPapa Far from Perfect, Far from Terrible

Micah Lloyd Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

Stephan Hammond It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Michael Morrison Anne Archer seems a bit too attractive and young for a judge and especially for a Supreme Court nominee, but she pulls it off.As her daughter, Erin Karpluk doesn't have a lot to do, but she is a very lovely young lady with personality and should go far.Michael Shanks as the seducer is wonderfully smarmy, and terribly good in this role.Early dialog is often clever and humorous and pleasant fun to listen to, even though to me all the utter nonsense about government -- disgustingly realistic in this movie -- usually makes me both angry and frustrated.Politics should not rear its ugly head in a Supreme Court nomination, but -- especially since the naming of Judge Robert Bork, and the astonishingly ugly attacks on him, followed by the even worse and even more vicious attacks on Clarence Thomas -- politics does intrude and we've all seen that one particular party and class of people in government have no limits, no concept of ethics.This script does a good job of not naming political parties and therefore does not point out one or another as culprits. But anyone at all familiar with recent history should be able to make some comparisons.Never mind. The story stands solidly on its own merits, and the cast is superb. I recommend "Judicial Intrigue."

poj-man I give Judicial Indiscretion a 5 merely for splitting the difference. If you are looking for realism the film is a Zero. If you are looking for Soap with Sudsy Men and Women that goes a cut above most LifeTime Material then you will like this one. It has "Liftime Juice." The "Juice": The character is a Supreme Court Judge nominee and she looks stylish and fabulous. So do the sets and the locations and the men and women...and the main protagonist is not a housewife or businesswoman but a FEMALE SUPREME COURT NOMINEE! YOU GO GIRL! This is what is referred to as a Strong female role model in other comments with good moral values, a "properly deceased husband" (so she is single by virtuous method), a hot daughter in college, clothes and money and power. Plus...for her age...she is a good looking MILF. Anne Archer is getting some somehow! This is all the juice a Lifetime movie needs! I also disagree with the comment about Ann Archers skills. She's been on screen since 1970 every single year of her life. She may not be Sophia Loren but she is an actress survivor for 40 years. I say "Bully to You, Anne Archer! You earned it!" The realism fails on the moronic character representation. I suppose...given Weinergate (and others)...that the Anne Archer judge could be so smart and so stupid at the same time. Why...she has made it to the point of becoming nominated for a Supreme Court Justice but...hey! Mr. Studly says he is an Irish writer and maybe he could be Mr. Right so I'll just go out to dinner with him,never ask anything about his past that may concern you, never think "I'm a possible Supreme Court nominee...maybe people are out to get me"...I never have real discussions about legal issues...I just flit from scene to scene looking glamorous! If you like the Soap Fantasy and think that watching a Smart Strong woman make some really dumb decisions is your fare then have at it. If you watch stupid people do stupid things over and over (Weinergate for ex.) in the world and are tired of it...no matter what their position in life...then watching another stupid smart person won't work.

jrcham94 Anne Archer's weaknesses as as actress are revealed in this mind-numbing bit of hokum. This movie was bad even if compared to other low-budget sudsers that are Lifetime's usual staple. Worst was the blatant homophobia of the film. San Francisco residents are referred to as "fruit loops that all moved to a place where they can feel normal." Archer's character, an Appeals Court judge no less, later agrees, referring to the "fruits and nuts" in San Francisco. When confronted by a gun-wielding Senator in the back of a car, the villain snorts, "you can't shoot me; this is San Francisco. They'll think it's just another gay tryst gone bad." (Huh?) I stayed with the film only out of fascination for just how awful it could get. Archer's wooden, creepy performance as a Supreme Court nominee was about as believable as Denise Richards' famous turn as a "nuclear physicist" in one of the Bond films. (Which is to say, laughable.) Unless you get some sick enjoyment out of watching really bad, cynical film-making, avoid this turkey at all costs.

meditatingmonkey1 This might contain a spoiler, i don't know for sure.Judicial Indiscretion was the first time i saw Michael Shanks doing something other than Stargate, and i was really surprised. The Irish accent overwhelmed me at first just because it was so different, not saying it was bad, just new, and to me he didn't look like an Irishman, which makes sense because he wasn't. What really freaked me out was the whole rapist part, and just how psycho the character was, which was riveting, and creepy. But overall Michael Shanks did a great job in the role, and i'm a Stargate fan, even more a Daniel Jackson fan, so seeing him playing something new, or a character so low, if that's the right word for it, so unlike Daniel is a better way of putting it, like Jack Sullivan was, or seeing him do other things than Stargate is always interesting. Anne Archer's role was very good too, but i wouldn't know to much about her work, the only other movie i've seen he in, or at least on the top of my head, was Man Of The House, and in that movie i hadn't seen much of her acting ability, but i thought she was good in this movie.