Excellent, Without a doubt!!

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

I love this show and I feel that most times the judges have it right. sometimes they are not too nice but neither is judge Judy. They are not their to be the defendant;s friend and in most cases i agree with their verdict. Most of the defendants are guilty and you can tell almost right away that they are lying and trying to get money that they are not entitled to.

I love this show, I don't understand what the other reviewer was talking about I really miss Judge Backman. I hope he comes back. The new judge is nice but I really like the dynamics between the other 3 I hope he didn't quit because of his jealous ex who keep writing nasty reviews Please bring back Judge Backman for a guest judge the new judge is nice he's growing on me Love the other two. Being an Italian I totally relate to Patricia Judge Acker reminds me of my daughter (My daughter is also and attorney). Love the shop

Let me just begin by saying a majority of cases I feel they handle pretty well, examining most relevant evidence and handling the situation justly. They are much more professional than Judy most of the time.However, there are several cases where their biases are obviously influencing their judgments. Several cases of ignoring evidence just because they don't like the litigant or it doesn't match their predetermined rulings they have in their mind before the case even began.They also have a similar problem Judy does, where a litigant will tell their testimony, then the judges assume that just because something doesn't sound like 'common sense' or it's not the action they personally would have done, then the person must be lying. This is another cognitive bias they need to learn to get rid of.They also take punitive damages a little too far at times, sometimes punishing people who were only looking out for themselves and ended up indirectly harming someone else does not make a case for punitive damages. It's supposed to be used when someone intentionally did something bad to someone else or to abuse the law to their advantage.(Spoiler recent case) A recent case where an apartment's tenant left her stuff behind 6 weeks after moving out, the landlord had evidence of contacting the tenant trying to get them to pick up their stuff. They show up at the very last minute and bring a friend with them who ends up punching the landlord, yet the tenant is not held responsible at all and still is allowed to get their stuff when it is far past the date. Just because the landlord had a post on Facebook about the tenant losing their TV for not following the rules, the tenant got all their stuff back and the landlord got punitive damages even though she gave them plenty of time to pick up their stuff and she got punched in the face, quite ridiculous.About the new judge Corriero that replaced Bachman: I really liked Bachman, but there were times where he was kind of biased and decide his rulings based on whether he liked a litigant's actions or not and not based strictly on the law. The other 2 do this way more often, but he is not innocent of it. There is also some mild sexism I noticed from most of the judges (not just hot bench, but especially on Matthis/Judy), if there's a case where a woman claims a man owes her money, majority of the time the woman will win the case even if it's clear from the beginning the man never considered it a loan, and if the defendant claims 'I never agreed to pay her back, it was a gift' and then the judges say something very sexist such as 'You're a man don't you think you owe it to her to man up.' This kind of thing never happens when a woman owes a man money and they almost always assume it was a gift to her unless the man has mountains of evidence.

I have never seen three Judges more ignorant and clueless. They are arrogant without any redeeming qualities. If there's one Court Show that needs to be canceled this is it. I have nothing but contempt for all three of them and their Court should be dissolved and they should all be sanctioned for incompetence and their law license revoked. I am VERY disappointed. Please replace these three as soon as possible. From what I have read I'm not the only person who believes this. I can't understand why these three got a show or are most Judges this disgraceful. Now the site wants 10 lines ! How can you write 10 lines about a show this awful.