Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

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.

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.

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.

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.