First Monday in October
First Monday in October
R | 21 August 1981 (USA)
First Monday in October Trailers

For the first time in history a woman is appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where she becomes a friendly rival to a liberal associate.

Reviews
Palaest

recommended

... View More
Nonureva

Really Surprised!

... View More
Blucher

One of the worst movies I've ever seen

... View More
mraculeated

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

... View More
calvinnme

This is a film about the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court, released about the same time that Reagan appointed the first woman to the Supreme Court - Sandra Day O'Connor - with the female justice, Justice Ruth Loomis played by Jill Clayburgh, and Walter Matthau as her fellow justice and ideological nemesis, Justice Dan Snow. The chief justice is played by Barnard Hughes who seems to just want to keep the peace and keep a low profile, not really what you would expect from a chief justice. Weirdly nobody calls him by name, they just call him C.J.This thing is really a time capsule, and that was surprising since I was 23 when it was released and thought of 1981 as modern times. At Loomis' confirmation hearings she is asked if being a woman will influence her decisions and why she doesn't have any children! Even the justices make sexist remarks like saying "the perfume will make the place smell better" and wondering if she will put up curtains! The really interesting thing for me was that I had a hard time telling whether Loomis and Matthau were just disagreeing on individual cases or if one was right and the other left or if one or the other was supposed to be a moderate! Not until the end does the film clearly tell you which is which with a funny line about cab fare and liberals never having money.There are two cases the justices spar over - one is about a pornographic film that the maker says is actually an educational documentary, and the other is a large corporation's possible attempt to squash the development of an idea that would have competed with their established products.Loomis naively talks about the virtues of big corporations and how they only want to build up America and their stockholders. Matthau does a monologue about defending everybody's right to free speech no matter how offensive. Today nobody believes big corporations are inherently good, and both libs and conservatives would like to squish the other side's free speech rights if they could.The dialogue could have been better for the material, but there is a mini-mystery towards the end that gives the film an interesting twist. Matthau is basically just playing a more erudite version of Oscar the slob from The Odd Couple. Matthau's character's wife (Jan Sterling) leaves him in the middle of the movie because - I'm not sure - the reason she gave was that her husband did not know what kind of wallpaper they had, but she made sure to take that fur coat with her! Probably she left so that there could be a possibility of sexual tension between Matthau's and Clayburgh's characters. I'll let you watch and find out if that actually happens.I loved it if for no other reason than to take a look back at how politics used to be. I'd give it an 8/10 but YMMV. Especially when you see the credits and find that Robert E. Lee co-wrote the play and the screenplay! It probably could not get screened today because of that! Oh how times have changed!

... View More
Solnichka McPherson

Ever get the feeling Walter Matthau plays the same character in every movie? Oscar Madison? Buttermaker? Dan Snow? Yup, it's no mirage. But give him credit - no one does the grumpy routine better than Matthau. This film - conceived, written, produced and prepared before Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed to the Supreme Court - deals with the relationship between Matthau (his character is based loosely on William O. Douglas, I suspect) and Clayburgh and their differing legal perspectives. It's actually a charming look at a serious subject, the basic dilemma between morality and legality. Unfortunately, there is some gratuitous gender humor and nudity, which really has no place in this film. Clayburgh is likable enough, but her role is ridiculous, assuming the character really is a prominent woman - if you can overlook the tasteless gender jokes, the film is worth viewing.

... View More
romanorum1

President Ronald Reagan's appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor as the first woman Supreme Court Justice in the USA in 1981 may have inspired this movie even though the original play was several years earlier. Jill Clayburgh stars as the unattached, conservative, and sprightly Ruth Loomis from California who remains undaunted as the new Justice. Co-star Walter Matthau (Dan Snow) is the cantankerous, veteran liberal Justice with whom she repartees on various legal issues. Obviously there are long dialog scenes. Snow is an advocate of free speech and expression. "I'll defend everybody's right to speak and every man's right to be wrong!" he exclaims. Snow also rails, "There are only eight of us left against all of her." There is one odd exchange delivered by Justice Loomis during her confirmation: "The F.B.I. is wrong in reporting to you that I have no children. Ideas are my children, and I have hundreds of them." Yikes! But, exhibiting good chemistry, both stars are at the top of their game. Clayburgh and Matthau are both quick-witted and likable. The movie was shot on location in the District of Columbia and also in California. As the plot is rather thin, the acting carries the movie. It is not bad, but it is also no classic.

... View More
mlionfire

Walter Matthau will always be one of my favorites from the sleazy bar-owner in King Creole to Hopscotch(another unusual pairing with Glenda Jackson)to countless other films he has appeared in... His droll comments and quick wit are hilarious.... and Jill Clayburgh does stand up to the occasion of matching him in legal argument(although scripted).... Of all the Matthau pieces, I think this is well worth the time, though I think the title(refers to the first sitting each year of the Supreme Court Judges)could have been a little more enticing to the general public... I think as a result of the title this movie has been largely overlooked... It is a funny, believable piece, well worth catching if you can!

... View More
You May Also Like