Judicial Indiscretion

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!

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.

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?

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."

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.