Instant Favorite.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

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.

This is just a dog and pony show of the court system. I will not watch this show anymore. It's a joke.Take it off TV please.

The new Judge to replace Judge Backman is terrible. He has know excitement or passion being a judge like Judge Backman brought to the show. The two women Judges would be better alone then adding this new boring judge. This new Judge seems like he doesn't know what's going on. sure he may have been a good Judge but he makes a bad TV Judge. Please find someone else. Someone that where we can see some emotions. Happy, sad, angry, what ever it may be. This new Judge is almost comatose. I love this show but don't know how much longer I'm going to watch. The new Judge is turning me away from watching this show. I hope Judge Judy gets to read this and fix the problem before the show is no longer on TV

Spoiler Alert! There have been changes to the show's line-up!I am a big fan of the TV court show genre, but I don't like or enjoy ALL the shows are on the air. I find many of them to have a rather irreverent air about them, with many of the "jurists" appearing to lean more toward making the litigants look silly on the air. That being said, I like the concept of "Hot Bench", with multiple legal minds drawing on their professional experience and expertise to weed through the prattle, in order to reach a decision in the case, based on established laws and statutes that apply to the case at hand. I also like the show's practice of allowing the viewing audience to see them deliberate on the case, going over all the legal points of the case by applying the law to the facts (or lack, thereof): The fact that the jurists on this show also have a little fun at the litigant's expense, is usually the result of the litigants firmly, and sometimes inadvertently, putting their own feet in their own mouths. As this show is the "baby" of Judge Judith Sheindlin, I can see some of her influence on the show's demeanor, i.e., "putting the hammer down" on attempting to include hearsay testimony, and that all three jurists are what she calls "equal opportunity abusers", in that they call out BOTH sides when their testimonies don't add up, or when they try to include information that wasn't in the original signed depositions. I also like that each jurist has an expertise in particular aspects of the law: Judge Backman's in contract and criminal law helped more than a few litigants in their respective cases. And what really pleases me about the show, is that they are not afraid to disagree with each other on the legal points in the case, and are not above dissenting when they don't agree with the other two on points that can be decided one way or another, based on established law. If Judge Sheindlin is really retiring from her show in the near future, I'm happy she chose this vehicle to "keep her hand in the game".