Alicia I love this movie so much

Aiden Melton The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Lucia Ayala It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

SimonJack The proximity of the film, "First Monday in October," to the actual first female justice to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court is uncanny. Others have surmised how President's Reagan's announcement of Sandra Day O'Connor for the high bench (July 7, 1981) may have helped draw interest and attendance at this movie. The film debut was Aug. 21. Two days earlier, Reagan had submitted his formal nomination of O'Connor. No doubt, the film was still playing in theaters when the Senate confirmed her by a 99-0 vote on Sept. 21. This movie was based on a stage play that had a short run some time earlier. This might have been an interesting peek at the court and its first woman (fictional here, of course), but the script is so wishy- washy. The bones of contention in the film are weakly scripted. They seem so lame and might lead one to wonder why we have a Supreme Court at all. Now, had there been some issues with real substance, the plot might have been saved. Well, the writers and movie makers tried to drum up some interest with dialog that argued freedom of speech and differing views between members of the court. This and related confrontations were the "meat" of the story carried mostly by the two leads, Walter Matthau and Jill Clayburgh. The few humorous lines injected a little life into the film, but they were too mile and too few. The leads were fair with the material they had. But they might have put more energy into their roles as justices Dan Snow and Ruth Loomis. The best one can expect from this film is some light humor and an inside look at the Supreme Court building In Washington, D.C.

moonspinner55 The U.S. Supreme Court elects its first Madam Justice, an attractive, widowed judge from California; the first issue on the docket is whether a Nebraska zealot pining for family values can ban a pornographic film (it's title: "The Naked Nymphomaniac"). Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee's script, based upon their play, is cognizant of the effects of a female voice on the Supreme Court, but doesn't give Jill Clayburgh's Ruth Loomis anything but obvious points to make. She is Woman, hear her Roar! The cutesy repartee with fellow Justice Snow (an uncomfortable-seeming Walter Matthau) matches the women's-lib quips and retorts; no matter how truthful Loomis' arguments may be, everything in this version is underlined with whimsy. It's a poor substitute for strong political comedy, coming off more like a Hepburn-and-Tracy cast-off unearthed in an old filing cabinet. *1/2 from ****

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...

Bud-K The dialogue is priceless, and the physical comedy is great too, i.e., Barnard Hughes never says a word as he approaches Matthau's office where Matthau and Clayburgh are in a heated debate; it's a long shot from the office doorway as he approaches, and as soon as he is within earshot, he does a perfect "to the rear, march" without missing a beat!I agree wholeheartedly with the comments of bato-2 except for the "comedy isn't much" remark. Why such a low rating?This movie is among the many that I have taped, and I return to it often for "pure enjoyment".