Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Matylda Swan It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Stephanie There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

areos-02895 The male judge - Michael Corriero - bends over backwards to try to view women as innocent victims. He is also full of lectures to men along the lines of "Men pay for the little lady, do you understand young man?" He fancies himself a "real man" and intends to show other men how to be real men (with his high-pitched voice that goes even higher during his rants). He's disgustingly transparent.

lolitad-08964 I used to love this show. The judges were fair in their decisions and respectful of the litigants. I enjoyed watching the show. In the last couple of months, the show has devolved into more of a WWF version of lawyers. Which judge can be more rude, which one can yell over the litigants, who can be more insulting? This applies only to the women; Judge Corriero has maintained a professional demeanor. What happened to the female judges? I can imagine a memo from Judge Judy (who I have never liked nor watched because of her insulting manner) instructing the judges to be more edgy. I have news for you, some lace around her robe does not soften her; a big smile from Judge DiMango or Judge Acker after they have shouted over the litigants does not soften their behavior at all.I guess you are looking for an audience who cheers abusive behavior instead of applauding people treating each other with respect.

Vanessa Ray When the show first came on I enjoyed it, however, the judges have become rude and hateful, they yell at and cut the people off, without getting all the info. No one should be treated that way. Guess they are trying to be like Judge Judy. Sad!It's just became a show to abuse people. The judges decisions don't always seem to be based on the law, but on personal opinion.

Ezjm ezjm Let me just begin by saying a majority of cases I feel they handle pretty well, examining most relevant evidence and handling the situation justly. They are much more professional than Judy most of the time.However, there are several cases where their biases are obviously influencing their judgments. Several cases of ignoring evidence just because they don't like the litigant or it doesn't match their predetermined rulings they have in their mind before the case even began.They also have a similar problem Judy does, where a litigant will tell their testimony, then the judges assume that just because something doesn't sound like 'common sense' or it's not the action they personally would have done, then the person must be lying. This is another cognitive bias they need to learn to get rid of.They also take punitive damages a little too far at times, sometimes punishing people who were only looking out for themselves and ended up indirectly harming someone else does not make a case for punitive damages. It's supposed to be used when someone intentionally did something bad to someone else or to abuse the law to their advantage.(Spoiler recent case) A recent case where an apartment's tenant left her stuff behind 6 weeks after moving out, the landlord had evidence of contacting the tenant trying to get them to pick up their stuff. They show up at the very last minute and bring a friend with them who ends up punching the landlord, yet the tenant is not held responsible at all and still is allowed to get their stuff when it is far past the date. Just because the landlord had a post on Facebook about the tenant losing their TV for not following the rules, the tenant got all their stuff back and the landlord got punitive damages even though she gave them plenty of time to pick up their stuff and she got punched in the face, quite ridiculous.About the new judge Corriero that replaced Bachman: I really liked Bachman, but there were times where he was kind of biased and decide his rulings based on whether he liked a litigant's actions or not and not based strictly on the law. The other 2 do this way more often, but he is not innocent of it. There is also some mild sexism I noticed from most of the judges (not just hot bench, but especially on Matthis/Judy), if there's a case where a woman claims a man owes her money, majority of the time the woman will win the case even if it's clear from the beginning the man never considered it a loan, and if the defendant claims 'I never agreed to pay her back, it was a gift' and then the judges say something very sexist such as 'You're a man don't you think you owe it to her to man up.' This kind of thing never happens when a woman owes a man money and they almost always assume it was a gift to her unless the man has mountains of evidence.