Judicial Indiscretion (2007 TV Movie) User Reviews

Soapy Chick Flick for Soapy Chick Flick Lovers

[poj-man · 5/10 · 11 June 2011]

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.

Intelligent, well done

[vchimpanzee · 7 December 2009]

Circuit Court Judge Monica Barrett is told she may be on the short list for the next Supreme Court nomination. At the start of the movie, we see two different images of her: first, she has trouble deciding what to wear--but then why does it matter if she is wearing a robe, she finally realizes. However, when a CEO who has embezzled gets sentenced, she has no trouble being decisive and professional. Monica is a strong woman and not to be messed with.

Monica lost her husband Paul three years ago, and she has a grown daughter Jenn, who is a workaholic like her mother. They visit before Monica takes a vacation in San Francisco. While there, Monica meets a charming Irish writer named Jack Sullivan. Well, that's what he says, anyway. Before returning home, Monica has an experience that may cause trouble for her Supreme Court nomination, if it does happen.

After her return, Monica hears from someone who knows what happened, and this person won't go away. And he seems capable of anything.

Sen. Garland Wolf strongly supports Monica, despite some differences they may have had in the past, and the news is good. Monica is the nominee. All of the others have something in their pasts, though so does Monica, if anyone finds out.

Anne Archer does a fantastic job. She's quite attractive for a woman her age, and though conservative in her dress, Monica always looks stylish yet professional. Monica is quite a strong character and she smiles a lot, and yet we often see a vulnerable side too. But regardless of what she goes through, she won't back down from what she believes.

The writing is quite intelligent, and I can believe this is how life for a Supreme Court nominee might be, with the advice and various meetings and appearances. Naturally, this movie provides a little something extra in the process; most nominees wouldn't go through this much.

William B. Davis as the senator and Anna Hagan as another judge both give impressive performances. Michael Shanks also did well as Jack. I think Angelique Naude deserves mention too, even with only a few lines. She made me like her right away, and I hoped to see more of her, though it was clear she was never going to have a big role. Unless they made her a wardrobe consultant or something.

We get to see a lot of fine architecture. In addition to the Washington landmarks, there is Monica's courthouse, and the fabulous San Francisco hotel. Even on the inside it's fabulous, though I imagine if the credits say the movie was filmed in Canada, the interior was a different place or places.

Certainly a worthy effort, and not your usual Lifetime film.

Homophobic trash

[jrcham94 · 1/10 · 9 April 2008]

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.

In a time of universal deceit telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act: George Orwell 1984

[sol-kay · 7/10 · 27 February 2008]

***SPOILER ALERT*** The down and dirty politics involving the conformation of a Supreme Court Justice is effectively and skillfully shown in the made for TV movie "Judicial Indiscretion".

Eight Circuit Court Federal Judge Monica Barrett, Anne Archer, has a perfect record in administrating the law in accordance with the US Constitution. In a case Monica presided on some time ago a member of the party the she ruled against has been festering a hatred against her that bordered on insanity. It's that individual who will go to lengths that will not only, if he or she's successful, destroy Monica's career as a jurist but her very life.

Being picked by President Sean Allen as a Supreme Court Judge Monica is a shoo-in to be confirmed due to her unblemished record on the bench. Behind the scene's things are put into motion to get Monica into a compromising position and use that to blackmail her. The blackmailer is to either get Monica to do his bidding's on cases she votes on or, with the facts being made public, have her never to be able to go into a courtroom, as a judge, again.

This dirty and sleazy job is assigned ,by the chief blackmailer, to handsome and personable Jack Sullivan, Michael Shanks. Sullivan is masquerading around town as a struggling young Irish writer looking to get a break in the publishing industry. Running, or making it look like he did, into Monica when she's on vacation in San Francisco Sullivan gets her to drop her guard as he, after taking her out to dinner, sips her a Micky Finn knocking Monica out cold.

It's later when Monica wakes up with a super size hangover and minus her clothes that she realizes that this "struggling young Irish writer" is working to end her very promising career as a newly appointed Supreme Court Justice. The kicker in the movie comes some time later with Monica coming back to her hotel-room and seeing herself, on the TV/DVD player, nude and unconscious as Sulivan, who it turns out is an ex-convict name Rooke, is putting his hands all over her! What Monica also finds out to her great distress is that Rooke is not the person who's behind the scandalous DVD! Someone in a high position of power whom she screwed out of millions, as well as ruined his reputation, in a case that she once presided on is the person behind this blackmail attempt! In his sick mind this blackmail DVD disc is payback for what she did to him!

****SPOILERS**** As you would expect in movies like these the blackmailing pair just didn't trust each other. This lead to one of them, Sullivan/Rooke, ripping off his partner out of his share of the blackmail money. Still with Sullivan or Rooke's unquenchable greed he goes so far as to try to kidnap Monica, a soon to be confirmed Supreame Court Justice, and get her to pay him off $100,000.00 a year for life in order to keep his mouth shut. If not he'll release the blackmail tape or DVD video disc to the public!

Not playing with a full deck, did he really think that he'll get away with all this?, Sullivan aka Rooke ends up getting blown away as the secret service, who had the hotel staked out, came to Monica's rescue. With her "dirty laundry" in danger of being hang out to dry in public Monica despite her being totally Innocent in what happened to her in her "one night stand" with Sullivan/Rooke offers to resign as a Supreme Court Justice to avoid President Allen any farther embarrassment. This despite the fact that the blackmailing DVD video was destroyed in the shootout at the hotel.

****MAJOR SPOILER*** The ending is by far the best part of the movie with President Allen giving a news conference and standing behind his pick, Monica Barrett, for the highest court in the land. This decision was based in Monica, as President Allen said, showing the both the courage and wisdom that's expected from a member of that exalted body of jurisprudence. This courageous act by President Allen, despite the fact that Monica was willing to give up the post, showed that he put justice above politics; Something that the vast majority of our elected officials wouldn't dream much less even consider doing!

Very Different From Dr. Daniel Jackson

[meditatingmonkey1 · 7/10 · 20 August 2007]

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.

Predictable... yet entertaining

[thecatzknow · 7/10 · 29 April 2007]

Well, any chance to view Michael acting in something outside Stargate is always a treat. Now if he can stay away from things like MegaSnake and Sumuru... Perhaps explore Shakespeare a bit, now we're talking! I did enjoy watching this Jack fellow twist around. Nice, quiet intensity Michael. Brooding, not so much, perhaps work on that. Too bad Ann Archer looked so tired throughout. I have always admired her work. In this she seemed, washed out. And seeing Cigarette Man from the X-Files was also a treat!

Otherwise, a good job done Michael. See, there is life after Stargate after all, and this from a die-hard SG-1 fan! Up the Jaffa!

Engrossing movie

[caa821 · 9/10 · 10 April 2007]

Anne Archer is above the level of the normally "B" actresses which you're more apt to find on this type of Lifetime/TV film. I think she could be termed an "A-list/supporting" performer, having appeared as Harrison Ford's wife in the Tom Clancy flicks, with Michael Douglas and Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction," etc.

She's a competent, likable presence, and her performances (including this one) can convey the drama, risk, and even danger, without the excessive histrionics often employed in flicks of this genre.

Here she is a widowed prominent judge, and the leading candidate for the vacant Supreme Court seat. During a vacation in San Francisco, she meets a younger man, apparently a charming Irish author. Through no intent on her part, she is placed (to say the least) in an extremely compromising position.

The story unfolds as she proceeds (under the tutelage of an expert liaison/consultant) on doing all the things a candidate for this sort of position might do (clothing choices, speeches, press conferences, visiting other cities, etc.). She finds herself encountering this same individual (who had disappeared from the San Francisco hotel) in various personas and various locales, receives some ominous calls -- and there is a well-presented air of mystery and danger for her as to exactly why this is occurring and particularly who else, if anybody, may have a hand in it.

The remaining cast is good, and the story interesting, and there aren't the gratuitous, over-the-top contrivances which this genre often contains.

Verdict for Judicial Indiscretion ***1/2

[edwagreen · 8/10 · 8 July 2007]

Anne Archer is at the top of her game as a supreme court nominee. She walks and carries herself like the late Jackie Kennedy. Smart, poised, and elegant, she has everything going for her until she is set up in a plot to discredit her so as to get her nomination out.

You do begin to wonder when the rapist shows up as part of the news corps and is seen with Archer's daughter. It all comes into focus as a corrupt, miserable senator has set out to destroy Archer for destroying him some years back.

The film is also quite good as it shows you how a supreme court nominee is guided through the process by White House assistants.

An attractive widow and powerful judge falls victim to a handsome psychopath and political intrigue.

[ovaga1 · 10/10 · 11 April 2007]

Anne Archer is one of the premier actresses of our time having co starred in the classic movie "Fatal Atrraction" for which she received an Acamdey Award nomination. She has also costarred with such talented male stars as Harrison Ford, Micahel Douglas and Gene Hackman. In "Judicial Indescretion" Anne has an accomplished actor Michael Shanks co-starring, who, with the right opportunities, will emerge as a talent to be reckoned with. And it's great to see that Anne has not lost any of her talent, acting abilities nor beauty as she delivers a virtuoso performance. The film is intelligent, riveting at times and socially relevant. Ms Archer is never strident, when lesser actors would be, and always credible with her understated and haunting performance. However, she emerges at the end, not a victim, but a woman empowered. It's too bad that we can't have women of her character in office. Or is that also the message of this subtly directed film?

"Truth and Justice Will Prevail"!!!

[lavatch · 8/10 · 15 January 2020]

The title of "Judicial Indiscretion" is misleading because it subtly implies that Judge Monica Barrett had committed an indiscretion that might imperil her nomination to the Supreme Court. In fact, Judge Barrett did nothing wrong and was the victim of a horrible crime. A better title would have been "The Perils of a Supreme Court Nominee."

Anne Archer is outstanding in the judge who is raped and blackmailed as part of a scheme to derail her nomination to the Supreme Court. The motivation was not even based on partisan politics or any political issue, but rather sheer personal power on the part of one maniacal member of the Washington elite. The strength of character of Judge Barrett was on display throughout the film.

Produced in 2007, the film may be back-read through the 2018 Senate confirmation hearings of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. In many ways, the attempts to destroy the character, personal life, and family of Kavanaugh were more insidious than the actions of a single sociopath attempting to destroy Judge Barrett in the film. The groupthink mentality on the part of the Senators and the ethical misconduct in using witnesses with little credibility to destroy Kavanaugh's candidacy were a disgrace on the American political system.

After being set up in a hotel bar in San Francisco, Judge Barrett proves her mettle as one very strong woman. Her integrity of being true to herself was apparent in her words, "It's never about being right, but doing right." She also quoted Orwell's famous line that "in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." She modeled that precept in the film.

The filmmakers often incorporate lyrical long shots of the great monuments of Washington, D.C., as they seek to promote the vision that "truth and justice will prevail." It is unfortunate that the Kavanaugh hearings of 2018, produced such a stain on the nation's lawmakers that it will take the institution of Congress a long time to recover.

Plausible story of modern politics, well done

[morrisonhimself · 8/10 · 3 June 2015]

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."