The Star Chamber (1983)

Very disappointing...

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

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

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Amusingly described by one review I read here as "a vigilante movie as it might be envisioned by John Grisham", "The Star Chamber" is a good, solid, entertaining thriller. It misses its chances for greatness due to predictability and a lack of credibility, but while it's playing out, some people, such as this viewer, may not mind too much.Michael Douglas, in one of his earliest star vehicles, plays Steven Hardin, a young judge who's frustrated by the legal system with which he has to work. Far too often criminal scum are able to escape just punishment due to legal technicalities and savvy defense attorneys. Stevens' cagey, witty mentor Benjamin Caulfield (a marvelous Hal Holbrook) eventually reveals to Steven the method he and some fellow judges have employed to deal with the situation: review old, particularly infuriating cases, make judgments, and pass sentence, utilizing the services of a hired gun.This is certainly slick stuff, well made technically with efficient direction by Peter Hyams and it's at least smart enough to provoke some debate. For example, what would *you* do: let the 10 guilty men go free or let the one innocent man get executed? It includes some fairly exciting foot chases as well as one brief and decent car chase in a parking garage. The climactic sequence in the abandoned building is appropriately atmospheric. And Michael Smalls' music score is haunting and effective.Douglas is good in the lead but it's the men in the major supporting parts that truly shine: besides Holbrook, Yaphet Kotto scores as a dedicated detective and James B. Sikking is touching as the father of a murdered child. Sharon Gless has little to do as Stevens' concerned wife. The cast contains an impressive Who's Who roster of character actors, including Joe Regalbuto ('Murphy Brown') and Don Calfa ("The Return of the Living Dead") as a pair of goofy creeps, as well as Jack Kehoe, Larry Hankin, Dick Anthony Williams, David Proval, Robin Gammell, Matthew Faison, Michael Ensign, Jason Bernard, and Robert Costanzo. David Faustino ('Married with Children') plays one of Douglas's kids and Douglas's own real-life mother Diana plays Caulfields' wife; Charles Hallahan ("The Thing", 'Hunter') appears uncredited as police officer Picker.The movie does move along quite well, getting off to a good start but not concluding as strongly. Still, it's good entertainment for most of the time, and may have people talking about its themes after it's over.Seven out of 10.

Too many well-known facts were omitted in this movie, and criminals didn't say what criminals say, all this in an apparent but weak attempt to preserve the purpose of the movie. It just never got off the ground. The two innocent men who were arrested for the murder of the ten-year-old boy let their lawyer argue that the police illegally searched their van, but never once proclaimed their innocence to the court nor to their lawyer. Even guilty men do that.The two detectives waiting at the trash can in the beginning of the movie say that they can't get a search warrant there in the next 30 seconds because that's when the trash is going into the truck, like they can't stop it, but after they dump the trash in the truck, the detectives, apparently with a newfound power, flippantly flash their badges at the trash guys, telling them not to pull the lever. That didn't make any sense.Men are getting away with murder because of bizarre glitches in the law in this movie, but when the judges order hits on murderers, it's somehow moral when Hal Holbrook says he can sleep at night. Michael Douglas's "we've become them" statement summed that up.It was little annoyances like those that kept a mediocre movie from being a great movie. In order to make a good point, as this one attempted, a movie must appear as real life, but this one wasn't even close. Among already mentioned items, there's no reason Judge Hardin would warn the two guys scheduled for a hit. Besides that, the judges began the hit on those two with apparent ease, but found it impossible to stop it. There were just too many parts of this movie that weren't believable and I found it hard to take seriously.

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.

Although the ending of the film is stupid, frustrating and illogical, the rest of this film is in fact pretty good, though it should be mentioned that some of the scenes are difficult to take. Whereas in Europe, justice systems seem more preoccupied with the rights of the criminal and couldn't care less about those of the victim, it seems to me that in the USA they have a more correct sense of right and wrong and probably apportion blame more justly, though of course, no system in the world is perfect. That said, as the film demonstrates, there would appear to be slip-ups even in the American system, and what better than the star chamber to right the wrongs committed by the justice system, murderers let off on technicalities etc etc. This gives the viewer a feeling of satisfaction .... that there is at least one continent in the world where criminals are really made to pay for their crimes. It's all the more surprising then, that a film which gives the impression of supporting this method, as I do, should suddenly at the last minute, want to take the bleeding-heart-liberal defense of the criminal ? What sane person could actually wish that scum such as Monk and Coom continue living instead of being eliminated ? To the film's credit they are actually assassinated by the hit man, but one get's the feeling, rightly or wrongly, that the film's director would have us believe that this is not the way of dealing with criminals, but without proposing a viable alternative solution. So much for the liberal politics of the film, which I find totally obnoxious, but on a cinematic level, it's pretty good and exciting stuff. I found the DVD here recently in Europe, and have watched it several times - although the ending is a real pain in the neck, the rest of the film is definitely worth watching.