Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

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.

edwinalarren The first time I saw this movie I thought it was good, however, it was nothing spectacular! After seeing it again last night, I realized that this film "First Monday In October" had a very sensitizing identification with the American voter and movie viewer. Exploring the haunting conundrum of "What exactly is the role of government in our lives?". This motion picture elaborates on the necessary challenges which plague our Supreme Court Justices. The general role of the Supreme Court is to assume the role of Devil's advocate when dealing with an issue which requires a final decision. So, if it is up to nine individuals who determine the resonating outcome for the most important issues facing our nation, why then, shouldn't one of these people be a woman? Undoubtedly inspired by the appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor by President Ronald Reagan, the first woman to ever be appointed to the Supreme Court in the history of our nation, this film delves into the redefinition of a woman's role in modern American culture.Now what exactly is the big problem with having a woman on the bench of the Supreme Court anyway? Here's my interpretation: Initially, all Americans, women and men alike, garner a delicate protectiveness towards the feminine gender. Here lies the core issue: We live in a world where rough and tumble prevails, and ultimately, left handed compliments are, emphatically, the most coveted ones. If we act gingerly around women, we ultimately conceal our real feelings towards them, hence, we have manifested a patronizing demeanor towards women that winds up being one of the most heinous insults which women can be the recipients of. What becomes the scourge while being in the company of many typical females; Emotional tip toeing, a pusillanimously yielding deference which is extremely nauseating, or, worst of all, while in front of a crowd of women, men start masquerading a ludicrously childish, sans vulgarity condescension to them. These social amenities serve as a subterfuge for men to provide a proverbial and unrealistic pedestal for women. All of these charades are wry and conciliatory actions which comply with a stilted decorum towards females. Aggregately, there arises a belittlement of women which brings on an onslaught of disconcerting mannerisms. This insincere politeness towards women is a mendacity that vitiates our candid and visceral feelings which are essential in attaining a thorough communication dynamic with each other as people. Ultimately, our societal etiquette which "reveres women" concurrently shortchanges them as human beings. The film "The First Monday In October" establishes an egalitarian criterion for all citizens, such a philosophy was a harbinger of things to come for the 1980's. I found this movie to be insightful and prescient, not to mention a well-made movie with a lot of talent!! I give it a thumbs up!! By the way, I am politically conservative, however, I did concur with Walter Mathiau's contention that our government should not be like scratchy outfits that we cannot wait to take off of our bodies the first chance we get. Our government's policies should correlate to the analogy that the rules and regulations set forth by our nation should be like old clothes that are comfortable!

isensee-2 When I first saw this movie, I had a discussion with a friend of mine over many of the things shown in this movie. After several years I again had another discussion with the same friend and it again was very interesting although very different. I can say this about two handful of movies. I give it a 10...

myrddyn Clayburgh did a fantastic job of balancing Matthau's usual strong performance. The two struck a rapport that I never expected, and they ran off with the movie. I gave it an 8 instead of a 10 mostly because the script and cast couldn't keep up with them. Also, they have some weak spots when they go for light-hearted comedy. For me, the real shining light of the entire show was the way the two managed to continue an understandable discussion of the hot issues in jurisprudence of that time -- at least fifteen minutes of viewing are justified by that historical perspective alone. In short, it's heart-warming, well-acted in the leads, and technically tighter than most viewers would realize.