Own the rights?
9 out of 12 people found the following review useful: Refreshing., 31 August 1999 Author: gridoon
Not altogether successful, but fully absorbing and thought-provoking film, with an exceptional performance by Douglas, even if he looks a bit too young to be a judge. Director Hyams knows how to shoot chase sequences, but he should have included less of them here. Still, it's refreshing to watch a movie that's suspenseful without being brainless. I recommend this film to eclectic viewers.
10 out of 14 people found the following review useful: Intelligent debate film but has a clumsy conclusion, 11 January 2002 Author: bob the moo from Birmingham, UK
Judge Hardin has a problem. He is beginning to be disillusioned by the legal system he represents and is repeatedly forced to release people who are clearly guilty due to legal technicalities set-up to protect the innocent. When the torture and murder of children comes before his court he is forced to release the suspects leading him to join a select court of Judges who are self appointed to a shadowy group that pass judgment behind closed doors before employing a hitman to carry out the sentence. However it doesn't take long before developments show Hardin the limitations of this alternative version of justice.The story here is in two parts. First we have the investigation side where Detective Lowes and others try to catch the child killers, but we also have the side with Hardin and the other Judges. The latter allows the film to debate the issues of justice and the legal system using the former as the catalyst for the debate. Both strands are fascinating when separate however when the two come together for the conclusion it doesn't quite work. The film is then forced to pick a side and manages to fudge it a bit and lose it's way. Up until then it's a great piece of work that makes intelligent argument both in attack and defence of the legal system. The film is still relevant today - in the UK we recently saw the alleged Lawrence killers walk free despite overwhelming evidence due to technicalities - in fact it is probably more relevant than it was then.The cast are roundly good - Douglas is good despite his slight scout style character. Holbrook does one of the best performances I've seen him give and Kotto adds some real class. It also gives small roles to Gless and David Proval (Ritchie in The Sopranos). The only weak link are the bug-eyed performances of suspected murders Monk and Cooms who are almost like cartoon characters at times.Overall an intelligent film that manages to hold a clever debate before blowing it with a ham-fisted conclusion.
9 out of 13 people found the following review useful: They were making a cerebral vigilante movie and an action film broke out., 8 February 2003 Author: Gary James from United States
When "The Star Chamber" was released to theaters in 1983, the movie bombed at the box office. I was lucky to see the movie in its second week of release. I have seen the movie several times on cable TV and video and even though the movie had some good ideas, it was ruined by turning it into a mindless, sometimes laughable action thriller. The story (by Roderick Taylor with the script co-written by Taylor and director Peter Hyams) rose slightly above the usual vigilante movie clichés. The movie asks what if some judges, frustrated by the law that they are supposed to uphold, took matters into their own hands? Despite strong evidence that would incriminate the accused, the judges have to reject the evidence on technicalities, freeing the accused individuals.Though the film has a strong cast, I though Michael Douglas was a little too young to play a judge (he was 39 at the time the movie was released). Hal Holbrook is essentially playing the same role he played in Hyams other "what if?" conspiracy thriller a few years earlier (Capricorn One): the veteran judge who is involved in this conspiracy and gets the Douglas character involved. Yaphet Kotto does what he can in the underwritten role of the L.A. police detective investigating the case. Sharon Gless is wasted as Douglas' understanding wife. Veteran character actors Don Calfa and Joe Regalbuto (Frank Fontana from "Murphy Brown") played the unsympathetic, cartoon criminals who are on the Chamber's hit list. Only James B. Sikking's performance as a victim's father who finds himself in prison when he tries to take the law into his own hands, came through. It was a very sympathetic and heartbreaking. In retrospect, it's interesting that Sikking played the SWAT commander on "Hill Street Blues" when the movie was released. Hyams' films (including "2010", "The Presidio", "Outland", the previously mentioned "Capricorn One", even the Jean Claude Van Damme flicks "Timecop" and "Sudden Death") are interesting to look at. "The Star Chamber" is no exception. But many of his films tend to disappoint and, sadly, "The Star Chamber" is also on that list.Update (July 2006): The current DVD cover of the movie is misleading. It has Michael Douglas holding a gun. In the film, his character never used a gun. What's up with the 20th Century Fox marketing department trying to mislead potential viewers of this movie?
6 out of 8 people found the following review useful: good idea, good directing, really lousy ending, 9 December 2004 Author: astigospe from Not Preston, thankfully
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
possible spoilers....I'd only like to point out how this could have been a wonderful social horror about absurdity of written law and dangers of vigilantism. As it happens it only scratched the surface of the issue worse than "Magnum Force" did ten years earlier.It starts really well in painting pictures on how a young judge Hardin gets sick of a legal system in which he has to set heavy offenders free on the grounds of mere technicalities. At the same time parallel story unfolds of a secret judging panel that keeps an eye on Hardin as its potential new member. The horror is at its full when another false trial produces real catastrophe and Hardin, on his free will, finally gets introduced to the panel and we learn that judges have their own idea of fighting crime on basis of vigilantism. No lawyer's tricks, no technicalities, just crimes, verdicts and a silent assassin to execute offenders.This is where the story begins to dissolve. Just when we are about convinced of absurdity of the system and possibility that its carriers are willing to bent it, the main character gets second thoughts about what he got into and is now equally willing to bring the whole thing down for the sake of morality. This was something that totally missed the point and led directly to a flawed ending of a movie.Hardin now gets in the position of trying to salvage criminals he first condemned as he finds out they were not guilty of the alleged crime after all. He also learns that his fellow vigilantes aren't as willing to correct the mistake as he is, because they know there are other crimes those villains did commit. Nevermind they will later be proved right, the vigilantes are now rendered enemies in Hardin's (and viewer's) eyes.Since the assassin is already well on his way and needs to be stopped (by no other than Hardin) the movie gains an unnecessary action momentum. A character of a police investigator is also added to the plot only to help Hardin bring about everybody to justice.I would like the movie to have gone the other way, with vigilante society intact and the character of Hardin matured into their worthy member (after learning a valuable lesson of living with one's mistakes). Even the police investigator could have been revealed as another vigilante executor. This would really have been mind provoking as we would have never known how far the conspiracy went.What we got instead is a pale copy of Dirty Harry flick Magnum Force, with Hal Holbrook even repeating his role of a vigilante leader.
9 out of 14 people found the following review useful: Fairly impressive early effort from Douglas, 1 February 2004 Author: davideo-2 from United Kingdom
STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All CostsIn one of his earlier features,Michael Douglas plays a young judge who becomes disillusioned with the law system he used to so admire when he finds himself continually having to aquit particularly dispicable criminals on the grounds of ridiculous technicalities.Sensing his frustration,a close friend (Hal Holbrook) informs him of a secret judicial society that meets and dishes out the appropriate punishment to those who have escaped the clutches of the law.However,events take a turn for the worst as the wheels get set too far in motion and he finds himself having to turn against this group and bring them down.With the aid of an inquisitive detective (Yaphet Kotto) this proves easier than anticipated.The whole thing weirdly ends up emerging as some sort of left-wing statement against the death penalty and the complications that could arise with it,in much the same way as the Kevin Spacey/Kate Winslet thriller The Life of David Gale would 20 years later.In this sense,it makes it's point fairly well,although the plot does seem to borrow rather too heavily from Clint Eastwood's Magnum Force to have the full lasting impact it could have had and it has a kind of far-fetched,unintentionally surreal feel to it that ultimately clouded my judgement.The odd title is never really explained or delved in to with much detail either.Still,for all these criticisms,it's riveting and consistently exciting enough to sustain your interest till the end,which,ironically for how unbelievable the plot is in some respects,is extremely believable and satisfactory.This star chamber is lucky enough to be granted two more from this generous benefactor.***
5 out of 7 people found the following review useful: Top class legal drama/suspense, 30 April 2006 Author: mattrochman from Australia
The Star Chamber will remain one of my favourite films of all time.For years, we have been debating whether the legal system is just and worth defending, despite the fact that it occasionally sets free criminals on technicalities. This film certainly explores this issue sufficiently and gives an insight into the judges who are forced to set them free on vague technicalities; and how their conscience is severely effected when the rights of the worst criminals imaginable comes before the dispensation of justice.Through the Star Chamber, a group of frustrated judges that have their own way of seeing that justice is served on criminals who escape the weight of the law. But what seems like a reasonable and just solution to the flaws in the legal system turns out to be a nightmare for their newly elected member (Michael Douglas) as this powerful legal drama builds to a rather suspenseful and engaging conclusion. Excellent movie with magnificent performances, but (thankfully) without the over-dramatic Hollywood hogwash. Performances by the cast are as solid as they come.I hear that they are remaking the film. I'd be surprised if it even came close to this one.
5 out of 7 people found the following review useful: Judges, Juries...And Executioners, 8 February 2004 Author: virek213 from San Gabriel, Ca., USA
The 1983 film THE STAR CHAMBER posits a situation that must seem outlandish, but does go right to the root of our justice system. What if a secret cabal of judges were set up to pass their own verdicts on criminals who had gotten off on minor technicalities?This is the problem facing Michael Douglas, who portrays an idealistic judge of the L.A. Superior Court who finds himself being forced to free criminals up on charges that include kidnapping and murder because the police bent the law a bit to get the evidence that would send "the bad guys" to jail for life or possibly to Death Row. Douglas later learns from his mentor (the always watchable Hal Holbrook) about a secret cabal of judges--a Star Chamber--that metes out its own brand of justice against those it feels have wrongly been set free. As a result, numerous criminals wind up getting executed. The further Douglas gets into the Star Chamber, however, the more he realizes that the cure these judges propose to rid society of criminal disease is far worse than the disease itself.Though it is not always plausible, THE STAR CHAMBER is nevertheless compelling, with Douglas and Holbrook giving standout performances under the direction of Peter Hyams (OUTLAND; CAPRICORN ONE; 2010), who co-wrote the film's script with Roderick Taylor. Some might compare it to the 1973 Dirty Harry film MAGNUM FORCE (in which the cops take the law into their own hands), and many would say its theme of vigilante judges is drenched in right-wing gilt, but I don't think that's the case. This is one of those films that definitely makes you think; and while THE STAR CHAMBER may have been released twenty years ago, its themes still hold up in a world where, rightly or wrongly, people see the justice system as too slanted in favor of the criminals.
6 out of 9 people found the following review useful: An entertaining, if imperfect film, 6 May 2005 Author: Idocamstuf from Greenville, NY
In this quietly released early eighties film, Michael Douglas plays a young city judge who is sick and tired of being forced to allow obviously guilty criminals off the hook due to technicalities built up by lawyers. He realizes that there may be a way to correct this problem once one of the older, more experienced judges(Hal Holbrook) lets him in on a group of judges that meet privately to set up murders of the guilty criminals that got off the hook.For the most part this is a highly entertaining and thought provoking film which always leaves you wondering where its going to turn next. However, there are a few important things that are left unexplained or just plain forgotten about, which was somewhat sloppy. Otherwise, a good film about an interesting topic. Certainly one of Douglas' best. 7/10.
3 out of 4 people found the following review useful: Someone has taken justice and hidden it in the law., 12 November 2007 Author: lastliberal from Florida
10 years after some rookie cops took it upon themselves to meet out justice in Magnum Force, a group of judges decide to do the same thing. They are deciding to punish those who use the law to get released on technicalities. Sound familiar? Maybe it's a good idea, as they look like they are going to remake this picture in a couple of years.Michael Douglas (Oscar-winning producer of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Oscar-winning actor in Wall Street) is a judge who is fed up with having to release child murderers. Hal Holbrook (4-time Emmy winner) convinces him that they have a better way. Unfortunately something goes wrong. In ride Yaphet Kotto (Emmy-nominated) to the rescue. I like Kotto and he doesn't disappoint here.I even got to see Sharon Gless, who I haven't seen since Cagney & Lacey, and James Sikking, who I recall from Hill Street Blues.Great concept, but they did it better on Magnum Force.
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful: A Most Secret Society, 3 March 2008 Author: bkoganbing from Buffalo, New York
The Star Chamber is a film that operates under the premise that the legal system has gone awry and it's up to the judges to apply corrective action to the decisions they officially make in court. Interestingly enough Hal Holbrook who came to that conclusion as Lieutenant Briggs in the Dirty Harry film Magnum Force, is now taking a similar position as a judge.Michael Douglas as a young Superior Court Judge in Los Angeles has reached the same crossroads. After a couple of decisions on procedure that resulted in criminals being cut loose, he starts to question whether the whole criminal justice system is out of whack. That's when Hal Holbrook tells him about a most secret society.A panel of nine judges have taken it upon themselves to overrule their own rulings. Douglas eagerly joins them, but certain things to go off course for him and he questions whether he's made the right career move.The cases that Douglas came a cropper on is stuff straight out of the Law and Order episode file. In that series sometimes I think the judge's rulings are somewhat bizarre. Of course in that series it just makes Jack McCoy and his successor try all the harder to win.It's a nice film, but I do get the feeling that Star Chamber is a Law and Order episode stretched out for a feature film.
Add another review
