The Star Chamber (1983)

People are voting emotionally.

Don't Believe the Hype

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

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

This movie was made in 1983. I must have seen it on TV sometime in the nineties, and the central theme has stayed with me since then - in fact, even more so as time has passed. So I have just bought and viewed the DVD. It was relevant then, and probably a lot more so in 2016, when I write.People worldwide are rebelling against the "system": the Star Chamber shows part of the reason - the increasing gap between common sense justice and the way the law has been perverted almost to the extent that the victims of crime are almost made into the perpetrators by the judicial system.Douglas is, as always, excellent as the judge who is drawn into the clandestine group of likeminded judges acting, with the best of intentions, outside the law to provide a form of vigilante justice. In fact the film is well cast altogether.There are several slight holes in the story, not least of which is how the hit men are funded, but these don't detract in the slightest from the beautifully constructed plot. It draws you in, especially because you can sympathise with the utter frustration of the people involved in a way that is rarely seen nowadays.One or two scenes could be shortened to good effect - the car park chase isn't up to Bullitt standards and probably slows the overall plot down rather than helping it along, and the finale warehouse chase is a little overdone.Overall, though, a film that should be compulsory watching for anyone debating how society is being allowed to disintegrate partly because of, rather than despite, the law.

Michael Douglas plays an increasingly disillusioned judge who discovers a secret tribunal of his fellow judges(the star chamber of the title), equally fed up with what they view as a crazy legal system that favors criminals rights over victims. He is at first intrigued by them, and joins, but then becomes increasingly disturbed by what he views as their own corruption and inefficiency, and decides to take action against them.A good cast and premise in a story that, as noted, goes too far astray of its original purpose, since it jerks the viewer around with whose side you should be on, since one is inclined to be frustrated by the judicial system as portrayed here, where clearly guilty defendants are let loose to commit more crimes, just because a search warrant was too vague, or improperly worded.Film tries to have it both ways by turning against everyone, so that it comes off as ultimately without narrative direction, and unsatisfying.

I first saw this film about twenty years ago and recall being fairly impressed by it. However perceptions change after all that time, and even though I welcomed the opportunity to catch it again the other night on cable, I couldn't help but pick up on a bunch of inconsistencies that brought down my original estimation of the picture.My biggest problem was with the 'in the scoop' argument by the defense attorney. Insisting that the garbage in which a gun used to commit a series of murders was still considered private property until it was co-mingled with everyone else's garbage in the body of the truck led to Judge Hardin's (Michael Douglas) decision that the evidence thus obtained was inadmissible. However it seems to me, had the contents with the gun been dumped, wouldn't the defense argument have been that there was no way to prove the gun came out of a particular garbage can? Unlikely as that might have been, there's your classic reasonable doubt.Then, when Monk and Cooms had their case thrown out on a technicality, they reacted as if they actually had been guilty but got away with it. But since it was later revealed that they were not the ones who killed the boy with the bloody sneaker, there was no reason in hindsight for them to have had that particular reaction. And what about that bloody sneaker? If they were not the real killers, what connection did that sneaker in their car have with the story? Absolutely none. So why was it even there in the first place? With all that, I thought the original premise of the story was pretty good. What decent, law abiding individual hasn't gotten fed up with the convoluted outcomes that result from slimy lawyers working the system to portray criminals as victims? With a little more work this one could have been an effective psychological drama pitting vigilante judges against hardened criminals who got what they deserved, even if it meant circumventing the law. But next time, give us a Judge Hardin that's not so angst driven about a mere technicality like Monk and Cooms being innocent. You know those creeps had to be guilty of something.

I read a review on Netflix that mentioned there was a menacing mood that permeated throughout The Star Chamber. After 52 minutes, when the plot was finally underway, I was still waiting for something suspenseful. It's not a horrible movie, it's just dull and seemed to go out of its way to avoid action. All the vigilante scenes happen in 30 seconds with some unknown sunglass-wearing white guy. And when they uncover three suspects behind one of the movie's main criminal cases? We're TOLD about their arrest by a third party. There were a lot of little things that didn't quite work (for me, at least)-- The first loophole that Douglas rules on made no sense both logically and legally. All (yes ALL) of the criminals in this movie, no matter their crime, are ridiculously strung out on drugs. The top secret star chamber is located in somebody's house in a room lined with open windows. Yeah I'm being nitpicky, but I was really disappointed by this one, especially given the cast. And why couldn't the judges stop that last hit? They clearly had time and there was no explanation as to how it would compromise their identities. Anyway, hope this helps somebody. Thanks.