InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Mabel Munoz Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

Yazmin Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

moonspinner55 Michael Douglas plays a young judge (very young, "not even old enough to shave," says a colleague) who is forced to throw out the case of a serial killer preying on welfare recipients. The gun the suspect tried to trash is tied to the crimes, his apartment contained the property of the victims--plus, he confessed! The trouble is, the detectives didn't have a warrant to search the contents of the garbage truck, forcing a legal loophole that allows a vicious killer back on the streets. Similar cases have plagued numerous other judges who have formed a secret panel, The Star Chamber, one that frustrated Douglas is soon invited to join. Tense, underrated crime-drama from director Peter Hyams, who also co-wrote the script with Roderick Taylor from Taylor's original treatment. The narrative is engrossing, and Hyams rarely lets his pacing flag. Douglas (not my candidate for a judge--maybe an overworked law student) is colorless, but Hal Holbrook gets another of his showy, shady roles and the supporting cast is uniformly excellent. **1/2 from ****

utgard14 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.

steve-1919 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.

classicsoncall 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.