The Star Chamber

I am amazingly surprised that no user has pointed it out. Nearly every one realized that STAR CHAMBER was very similar to MAGNUM FORCE. Correct. Every one speaks of Hal Holbrook. OK. But no one tells that Holbrook played in MAGNUM FORCE too, and in a very similar character as this one. One of the lead of a vigilante police force who wanted to wipe all criminals out. Are they blind or what?

Besides, I must admit that I prefer Ted Post's most famous feature, starring Clint Eastwood. Peter Hyams gives here a correct film, but he has done much better. See CAPRICORNE ONE, for instance.

I will finish this comment in pointing out that this kind of topic was very common in the late seventies and early eighties.

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.

(Credit IMDb) Disgusted with criminals escaping the judicial system via technicalities, an idealistic young judge investigates an alternative method for punishing the guilty.

I wouldn't call this one of Douglas's best movies, but it is fairly enjoyable for a thriller. Douglas hadn't attained the star power like he would in the upcoming years at this juncture. It is clearly evident that he would become a household name in the acting world. This is a good story about uncovering the corrupt system. It's nice to see a Judge that cares, wanting to do right. If anything else, this movie will uplift you. It's definitely worth a look

6.8/10

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.

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.