The Star Chamber (1983) Online

1983 Michael Douglas Hal Holbrook Yaphet Kotto Peter Hyams

Original Title :: The Star Chamber
Genre :: Movie / Crime / Drama / Mystery / Thriller
Year :: 1983
Directror :: Peter Hyams
Cast :: Michael Douglas,Hal Holbrook,Yaphet Kotto
Writer :: Roderick Taylor,Peter Hyams
Type :: Movie
Time :: 1h 49min
Rating :: 6.3/10

The Star Chamber (1983) Online

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

Cast overview, first billed only:
	Michael Douglas	-	Steven Hardin
	Hal Holbrook	-	Benjamin Caulfield
	Yaphet Kotto	-	Detective Harry Lowes
	Sharon Gless	-	Emily Hardin
	James Sikking	-	Dr. Harold Lewin (as James B. Sikking)
	Joe Regalbuto	-	Arthur Cooms
	Don Calfa	-	Lawrence Monk
	John DiSanti	-	Detective James Wickman
	Otis Day	-	Stanley Flowers (as DeWayne Jessie)
	Jack Kehoe	-	Hingle
	Larry Hankin	-	Detective Kenneth Wiggan
	Dick Anthony Williams	-	Detective Paul Mackay
	Margie Impert	-	Louise Rachmil
	Dana Gladstone	-	Martin Hyatt
	David Proval	-	Officer Nelson

The film's title is taken from a controversial English law court called the "Star Chamber" which was founded in 1487 by King Henry VII. This court sat at the Royal Palace of Westminster until 1641. The "Star Chamber" was so-called because the ceiling of the court where the judges met featured gold decorative stars. The court operated as a supplement to local justice processes where other courts of law could not for one reason or another enforce justice. This court took its name from another court also called the "Star Chamber" or "Starred Chamber" from the reign of King Edward II which functioned for meetings of the King's Council.

Debut cinema movie at 20th Century Fox for actor Michael Douglas who during the 1980s would make a number of pictures with this studio. The Star Chamber (1983) was the very first of these films at Fox for Douglas with the subsequent films being Wall Street (1987), Kalliskiviromaan (1984), Niiluse kalliskivi (1985), The War of the Roses (1989), and in the early 1990s, 1992's Shining Through (1992), making it a total of six films within about a decade. Other movies Douglas made with Fox include "Don't Say A Word" (2001), "The Sentinel" (2006), and "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" (2010).

First major role in a cinema movie for TV actress Sharon Gless.

Intended to be Fox's big summer film for 1983, the film was pulled from most theaters after two weeks due to poor box office and replaced with Mr. Mom (1983), a film the studio had no faith in, that eventually became a big hit.

Second of three movies where actor Hal Holbrook leads a group of outlaw law professionals with all three pictures being made and released exactly a decade apart. In 1973's Magnum Force (1973), Holbrook lead a group of rebel cops; in 1983's The Star Chamber (1983), Holbrook heads a court of vigilante judges; whilst similarly in another legal drama-thriller, Holbrook would later lead a team of renegade lawyers in 1993's Firma (1993).

The number of magistrates, judges and justices that sat on "The Star Chamber" was nine, the same number as the American Supreme Court.

Part of an early to mid 1980s cycle of vigilante movies which included Death Wish II (1982), Fighting Back (1982), Vigilante (1982), The Exterminator (1980), Death Wish 3 (1985), Exterminator 2 (1984), and The Star Chamber (1983).

Roderick Taylor, the film's screenwriter, in this movie wanted to explore the legal loopholes and legal technicalities that allowed criminals to walk free and get off or get reduced sentences or receive parole, as well as the lobby groups that rallied for more punitive punishments for repeat offenders.

The nickname of The Star Chamber was "the court of last resort".

The movie features footage of a baseball game being played between the Atlanta Braves and the Los Angeles Dodgers at Dodger Stadium. The footage shows Dusty Baker hitting a home run off of Phil Niekro. Also, a clip can be seen of a scoreboard during the game showing the Braves leading 4-3. This places the date of the game at 7 June 1982.

The dimly lit photograph of the nine Star Chamber judges appearing on the picture's main movie poster were nine people who were not actually the same nine actors who portrayed them in the movie.

The picture's closing credits declare that the film was dedicated "For George-Ann". George-Ann is the first name of George-Ann Spota who is the wife of the movie's director Peter Hyams. The film references her last name with the naming of a character called Sergeant Spota (Robert Costanzo) something which is a trademark of director Hyams.

Actress Fritzi Burr's performance as Judge Alice McCardle was accidentally left of the movie's credits. The 10th August 1983 edition of show-business trade paper 'Daily Variety' reports that Peter Hyams, producer Frank Yablans and the 20th Century Fox Film Corporation ran an advertisement apologizing for this mistake and oversight and praising Burr for her acting contribution to the movie.

Director Peter Hyams created lighting innovations to create the eerie atmosphere of the movie, including a daylight lamp, and utilizing light beams for the exterior shots.

The names of the Star Chamber judges were Judge Hardin, Judge Caulfield, Judge Archer, Judge Stoner, Judge Kirkland, Judge Bocho, Judge Fogelson, Judge Lang and Judge Culhane.

Debut credited produced screenplay of writer Roderick Taylor.

The production notes for this picture state that screenwriter Roderick Taylor originally approached producer Irwin Yablans with an eight page treatment about the legal rights of victims of crime about three years prior to the picture starting principal photography.

Screenwriter Roderick Taylor was inspired to write the film's screenplay from a series of true crime stories which had been published in 'The Los Angeles Times'.

Some movie posters for this film featured a long preamble which read: "They are the most powerful members of our community. They have a shattering secret. A secret that will affect us all. Only one man is willing to stop them. On August 5, you'll know who they really are."

The 18th June 1982 edition of show-business trade paper "Daily Variety' reported that the 20th Century Fox film studio developed a new piece of lighting equipment especially for this picture. The lighting unit, which reportedly could shine up the same as "ten of the industry's largest arc lamps", took about one month to build, and was nick-named "The Big Fox Light". The light had the following technical specifications: it was made of aluminum, it operated via a hydrocrane remote control, it had a light emission capacity of up to a level of eighteen million candle power units, was capable of eliminating any shadows produced during daytime shooting, it could facilitate location filming when illumination was required, and its length and width dimensions measured 11 x 11 feet.

Producer Irwin Yablans read several drafts of Roderick Taylor's screenplay prior to arranging a meeting with director Peter Hyams in New York City. Reportedly, the "star chamber" of writer and producer and director, walked around for five hours talking about the film's story and themes, before deciding that they should green-light the development of this movie.

The 20th Century Fox studio, which had produced three "Star Wars" movies, was concerned about this film's title "The Star Chamber", thinking that audiences might think it was a science-fiction movie. Fox Worldwide Marketing and Distribution President Tom Sherak said the studio made sure that the film's trailers were designed "to clear up any misconceptions about the title and the subject matter".

According to the American Film Insitute, as reported in the 27th July 1982 edition of show-business trade paper 'Daily Variety', this "article noted that an [US] $11 million lawsuit was filed by International Photographers Local 659 against Twentieth Century-Fox and Frank Yablans Productions, alleging that the duties of the director of photography Dick Hannah were reassigned to Hyams [director Peter Hyams], thereby violating the union's collective bargaining agreement. According to the complaint, Hyams 'usurped' Hannah's role as cinematographer, and the filmmakers had violated an agreement to permit a Local 659 'steward' on set to oversee production. The suit asked the U.S. District Court to award [US] $7 million in general damages and [US] $4 million in punitive damages."

Hall Holbrook and Michael Douglas would later be in Wall Street (1987) and would never share a scene together

Portraying Superior Court Judge Steven R. Hardin, the film was the first of two legal characters that actor Michael Douglas portrayed during the 1980s. The second was as Manhattan attorney Dan Gallagher in Fatal Attraction (1987).

This 1983 movie is the first of only two cinema movies where actress Diana Douglas has appeared in a picture starring her son Michael Douglas. The second and only other time [to date April 2014] was around exactly twenty years later with Fred Schepisi's 2003 film Perekonna viga (2003).

Actor Hal Holbrook leads a group of vigilante judges in this movie, and similarly, in another legal drama-thriller, Holbrook leads a team of rebel lawyers, in the later film Firma (1993), which debuted exactly approximately a decade or ten years after The Star Chamber (1983).

In the "Incredible Hulk Annual #1" story "Amazing Grace!" (September 1983), the Hulk gets involved in a civil war on planet Cygnet VII between the ruling Reds and the oppressed Greens. At one point, Hulk tells the Reds, "I don't like your Star Chamber tactics."

This 1983 picture was the second legal drama in consecutive years for the 20th Century Fox Studio who the previously year had produced 1982's The Verdict (1982). Both that movie and The Star Chamber (1983) were legal thrillers which had "The ... " type titles. This was something which would become popular with Hollywood in the later 1990s decade with various filmed adaptations of John Grisham stories [viz: Firma (1993), The Client (1994), The Chamber (1996), The Rainmaker (1997), Pelikani memorandum (1993) and The Gingerbread Man (1998)].

The 26th March 1982 edition of show-business trade paper 'Daily Variety' reported that the film's budget was US $8 million and the picture would be filmed entirely within the city of Los Angeles in the American state of California, USA.

This is the first of three Michael Douglas movies co-starring Jack Kehoe, the other two being "The Game" and "Falling Down".

Peter Hyams: [Spota] a character named Spota.

User reviews

Zan

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.

Leceri

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.

Dagdage

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?

Xanzay

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.

Modar

this is one of my favorite movies of all time! Not only does it have an all star cast, but is well written and really brings up some very good points about the law. The acting is amazing and is a great story. Deserves 4 stars instead of the two it received. Star Chamber has some of the best actors in it, including Michael Douglas, Hal Holbrook, Yaphet Kotto, Don Calfa, and Joe Regalbuto, just to name a few of the most popular. If you haven't seen this movie, SEE IT. It deals with the law and how the American Justice system is sometimes perverted, and an idea that even though the law isn't always right, it has its reasons for being that way.

anneli

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.

Vozilkree

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.

Binar

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.

Aria

STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All Costs

In 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.***

Biaemi

(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

Moonshaper

A taut, tense thriller that shows us a man who has to choose between the lesser of two evils. In the end, I think he chooses correctly. The U.S. court system, massively flawed though it may be, is far preferable to an elite group (or for that matter, an individual) taking matters of law into their own hands. There have been too many "dirty harry" type movies. Somebody had to make a movie like this, a movie that blurs the supposedly clear-cut line between "right" and "wrong," a line that Hollywood has tended to present to us as clear-cut black and white, especially in the action/thriller genre. It's refreshing to see a thriller that's also thought-provoking. The movie itself is flawed in many ways, but in my opinion it gets its point across well enough, and manages to be reasonably entertaining at the same time. 7/10.

Kage

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.

Nakora

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.

Nightscar

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.

BeatHoWin

Young judge Michael Douglas is frustrated with having to let scumbag criminals go on legal technicalities. Soon he's approached by his friend Hal Holbrook about joining a group of judges that meet in secret and decide to dole out vigilante justice to criminals who the legal system failed to prosecute.

Mature, thought-provoking thriller with an excellent first half but man does it fall apart in the end. The basic problem is that the entire first half of the movie is spent building up to Douglas joining this group. So a lot of time is spent on making us emotionally invested in WHY this group is necessary so we're on board with Douglas. But then, almost immediately after joining, the movie pulls the rug out from under itself and Douglas regrets his decision. Then we get a pedestrian climax involving a chase and shootout in a warehouse. All of that passion shown towards caring about the victims in the first half is tossed out in favor of the movie suddenly caring more about some dirtbag drug dealers who are clearly guilty of a lot of terrible crimes but maybe not this particular one they're to be executed for. Sorry but emotionally it's a tough sell.

The cast is terrific, with wonderful character actors in roles big and small throughout. The writing in the first half is also really good. But boy, the way it falls apart and so abruptly is such a downer. I'm still giving it a decent score of 7 because when it's good, it's great, but be forewarned that it's a movie that chickens out on its own premise.

Taun

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.

Gann

This forgotten little movie is not a masterpiece , but definitely a thought provoking movie that is worth your time . What is law and what is justice ? Is there a difference between them ? Which one is more important ? Can someone take justice in his own hands ? If the system fails to protect the innocent should we ignore the system ?

This movie asks all this important questions and wants you to come out with your own conclusions . It does not force you to one point of view. For example it's about to the viewer to decide if the ending is a happy or sad one.

Michael Douglas gives a great performance as a judge torn between his duties and desires . Hal Holbrook repeats his role from "Magnum force". If you seen it , you know what to expect . Same goes for Yaphet Kotto who plays a cop in the same way as in "Across 110th street" . Still , the give a solid performances . It's a little strange and sad that Kotto has so little screen time here and he seems wasted. I also have to applause the actors who played two thugs . They were really creepy.

The screenplay for most part is intelligent , especially when it comes to complicated law issues . Only the ending seems a little clumsy. It kinda turns this serious drama/thriller into action movie , but thankfully doesn't destroy it. And the cops here are suspiciously very intuitive at times .

"The Star chamber " has some cool photographed sequences like the chase at the beginning and the falling of one character near the end.

Overall , if you want to spend your time on intelligent entertainment this movie is a nice choice. I give it 4/10. It's more of a drama , so don't expect action or thrills.

Fesho

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.

Whitebeard

********SPOILERS******** This movie really takes the saying "I would rather have a hundred guilty go free then have one innocent found guilty" to the limit. Judge Hardin, Michael Douglas,is disgusted with how the law is administrated when he's forced to let criminals go free due sloppy police work.

A case that comes before his bench is that of a ten year old boy, David Lewin, who was found tortured and murdered in a city park. The two suspects Monk, Don Calfa, and Cooms, Joe Regalbuto,arrested were found to have a bloody sneaker belonging to David in their van but because the police had no cause to arrest them at the time all the evidence against them had to be thrown out and they let free. When Judge Hardin announced his decision the dead boys father Dr. Lewin, James B. Sikking, goes berserk and pulls out a gun and tries to shoot the two released defendants but misses and shoots a cop instead. Later in jail Judge Hardin visits the distort father who tells him that another young boy, like is son, was murdered the same way an that he'a as as guilty as those that killed him because he let them go free. Judge Hardin later watching the TV news learns that Dr. Lewin committed suicide in his cell.

Sick and depressed Judge Hardin is told by a fellow jurist Judge Caulfield, Hal Holbrook, that there's a Star Chamber that secretly holds trials on persons who escaped the long arm of the law and if there found guilty there secretly dealt with. Caulfield then asks Judge Hardin if he would want to join since one of the members died, he actually committed suicide, and there was a opening for him. Judge Hardin accepts and when the Star Chamber meets to preside on cases he brings up the David Lewin case and they vote that the two suspects that were let go are guilty and they are sentenced to death.

The Star Chamber sends out a hit-man, Keith Buckley, to do the job. Later the police find that the Van where the bloody sneaker of the murdered David Lewin was found was stolen and returned to those who were charged with the murder, Monk & Cooms, after the crime was committed without their knowledge. Judge Hardin gets in touch with the detective who cracked the case Det. Lowes, Yaphet Kotto, who tells the judge that the evidence was overwhelming that they caught the real killers. Even more upsetting to the Judge is that one of the suspects gave a full confession and that both Monk & Cooms were innocent all along.

Judge Hardin shocked that he unleashed a hit-man to kill two innocent men tries to stop the "hit" on Monk & Cooms but he's told by the members of the Star Chamber that it's too late and he'll just have to live with what happens to them. Finding out where the duo lives Judge Hardin runs there to warn them of the danger. When the, what seems like, less then stable Judge tries to get in contact with them they attack and beat him. Monk & Cooms think that he's nuts and being high on drugs as well as paranoid lunatics, they were also operating a drug lab, they weren't very receptive to what Judge Hardin was trying to tell them.

With Judge Hardin trapped Monk pulls out a gun and is about to shoot the Judge when a policeman pops up and shoots and kills him and his partner Cooms. It turns out that the policeman is really the hit-man sent out by the Star Chamber to do the hit. Seeing Judge Hardin with them the hit-man turns his gun on him but before he can shoot theirs a shot fired, off screen, from Det. Lowes and he falls to the ground dead.

The movie ends with the Star Chamber discussing another criminal to be executed but Judge Hardin is not with them. He's outside in a car with Det. Lowes recording what their saying to be used against them when their on trial for breaking the law that they were sworn to uphold.

energy breath

The original star chamber was an English court under Henry VII, around 1490, and was established in order to prosecute wealthy and powerful individuals whom the lower courts could never have convicted. In this movie the star chamber is made up of 9 people -- neatly distributed along racial and gender lines -- who have decided to sidestep the "law" in order to administer "justice." Can the law really be so blind as it is shown to be in the three cases we first see Judge Michael Douglas dealing with? If so, then "the law, sir, is a ass," to quote Mr. Bumble.

Douglas gets sucked into the secret panel of justices when a vacancy occurs. A couple of murderers who have gotten off on technicalities are offed once more and terminally by a court-hired assassin. None of the members of the star chamber seem to know who he is, because when it is revealed that they just sentenced two innocent men to death, they have no way of stopping the assassin from carrying out his assignment. I wonder how that works. What I mean is, who is the intermediary between the star chamber and the shooter? How does he get paid? And who pays him? The movie never explains just how this "machinery" works.

Michael Douglas plays a conscience stricken bourgeois, which is his forte. He's pretty good. Probably the best performance is Hal Holbrook's. He's a gray-hair fashionably styled avuncular type of judge who is Douglas's mentor and who calls Douglas "Kiddo," a term I haven't heard since elementary school. He's just about equaled by Yaphet Koto as a detective whose role in the story is unclear. But Koto is always reliable. The greatest FACE in the movie belongs to the guy who plays the criminal, Monk. He gives a first-rate imitation of a nervous wreck. His hair is the kind of growth you might imagine taking place somewhere inside your sewer pipe and his eyeballs dominate the screen.

The plot, however, cops out. It develops a bit of rather challenging ambiguity, then dispenses with it. The bad guys are not simply murderers. One of them combines all the most loathsome crimes that are thinkable. They kidnap young boys, drug them, have them perform in pornographic movies, torture them, then deliberately kill them. If they didn't exist, it would not be necessary to invent them.

By the end, the movie has turned into another action extravaganza taking place in one of those "abandoned warehouses" with chains hanging from the ceiling and holes in the floor. The assassin shows up just in time to save Douglas's gluteus maximi. Then, as he turns the shotgun on Douglas himself, he is shot from behind by Yaphet Koto, there for no particular reason. We don't find out what happens to Douglas or the rest of the star chamber. A lot of things are left hanging.

The only conclusion we can draw from this movie is that the law is a set of rules that people have agreed to live by. That applies to formal law and to the informal star chamber. And since the law is a set of norms drawn up by people, and people always disagree with one another and make mistakes, no law is ever going to be perfectly satisfactory. A compromise is always necessary. It's the kind of natural selection process by which the law evolves, piece by piece. The problem illustrated in this movie is that some people, those who form star chambers for example, are unwilling to compromise because they feel they have a monopoly on justice. They KNOW absolutely what is right and what is wrong so they don't feel it necessary to compromise. "Compromise" is a peculiar word. As Margaret Mead pointed out, it carries different connotations in the USA and Britain. In the UK, a compromise is when each side gets a little something out of the deal. In the USA, when you compromise, you lose.

Wiliniett

10 out of 10 rating is truly earned. This film remains a very memorable experience for me. My subjective opinion puts it at the top.

Most people have never heard of this movie, but everyone finds it intense and entertaining. It may cause you to think a little.

The theme is not a hot topic today--criminals set free because of loopholes in the law. But on another level, there is current relevance. The system exists for a reason, even if it is not perfect.

Our current political leadership is ignoring the constitution. Proclamations are now law--like with dictatorships.

The Star Chamber is a group of judges acting outside of the law. They want to clean up after the system fails and allows obviously guilty criminals to walk free. They review a case in private, inspect evidence, and then vote on a verdict. If found guilty, a hit man is ready to carry out sentence.

Young Judge Hardin is drawn in after letting 2 child killers walk free on a technicality. He joins the Star Chamber and asks for judgment on the child killer case. Things do not work out the way Hardin had expected.

Acting and photography are striking in this film. Veteran actors give great performances in rich, film noir settings. How do you go wrong with Douglas, Holbrook and Kotto? Action scenes are filled with tension and excitement. The opening footrace takes the viewer along through neighborhood living rooms and back yards. A car chase puts the viewer behind the wheel. The style is realistic, increasing the tension.

The final action scene finds Hardin in an out of control situation, both physically and in the plot. The viewer slides along with Hardin, spinning down an industrial chute to the final showdown.

We find out how the judges in the Star Chamber, even with their good intentions, are a very dangerous group.

Watch the Star Chamber and you will be ready to offer a recommendation to your friends. Someone will say that they need help finding something to watch, and you will recommend this movie and look like a genius.

elegant stranger

I thought the film's ending, contrary to others, showed something about why vigilante justice doesn't work. Moreover, though it gets there in a round-about way, it shows that justice has many complex twists and turns. As H.L. Mencken gets credit for saying, "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."

Hollywood justice leads us to believe that cops can't search garbage on the curb, but in reality, on the contrary, they don't even have to wait for the city's own truck to arrive to search one's "private" garbage. Moreover, in reality, cops violate the law with impunity. Judges work "buddy buddy" with cops, contrary to the portrayal in _The Star Chamber_.

Judges make a mistake in this movie, and they often make mistakes, too often. In this movie, they make mistakes with both criminals and innocents alike, and in reality they do likewise. However, in reality, in the "aughts" at least, DA's go after their "usual suspects," letting other violent criminals go in lieu of non-violent crimes where prosecutors don't have to worry about justice but have evidence of their liking, and law enforcement get away with whatever they want, including murdering people such as Sean Bell and Cau Tran in San Jose and New York, the latter in her own home.

Steelraven

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.

Xwnaydan

Missed this Michael Douglas film and thought I was missing something. Douglas plays a Judge, (Steven Hardin), "Don't Say a Word",'01, who has a hard time trying to judge criminals and sentence them directly to jail. The criminals have good lawyers who find Loop Holes in the law and force Steven Hardin to just simply release them all back into society. Hardin gets all twisted up like a pretzel and even his wife, Sharon Gless,(Emily Hardin),"Queer as Folk",'TV Series, has a hard time getting him to concentrate on her and especially in the bedroom department. Finally, Judge Hardin gets into a deep conversation with his friend, Judge Ben Caulfield,(Hal Holbrook),"Purpose",'02, who has a great way to solve his problem and offers him the opportunity to judge criminals a very different way. Michael Douglas had a pained expression's from the beginning of the picture to the very end and I doubt very much if he liked very much the character he had to portray. There is very little effort in Michael's role to indicate he had any enthusiasm about this role.

KiddenDan

Steven R. Hardin (Michael Douglas) is a young judge in Southern California. He has a suburban family with wife Emily (Sharon Gless). He has to release an obvious guilty defendant due to a technicality of a garbage truck. After another case where a technicality let loose two child killers and they end up killing another child, his mentor Judge Benjamin Caulfield (Hal Holbrook) brings him into the Star Chamber where presumably the guilty cannot hide from the truth and justice. Det. Harry Lowes (Yaphet Kotto) investigates the series of dead criminals adjudicated not guilty.

This is an intriguing idea brought to the big screen. I'm not a fan of dry court drama. There is some of that here but even the Star Chamber is not that compelling. The idea is what's compelling. It would be nice to inject some danger to Hardin. It's not until the last part where he puts himself in danger. Before that, he is a judge in the ivory tower that gets splashed by some of the blood from his decisions. He needs to have some personal stakes. It's too cerebral and too debate team. The father is the only emotional pull for most of the movie.

Categories

Related Videos

The Star Chamber (1983) Online

User reviews