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 ****

Derivative Story has Director Peter Hyams giving it a Glossy, Droll Look. Michael Douglas in an Early "Star" Role is a Disgruntled, Dissatisfied Judge suffering Depression and Frustration with the Law and its Loopholes.Designed to Provoke Thought and Discussion, the Film is a bit Dull during the Opening Act exploiting Cliché after Cliché and Scenes that are Long and Talky for the Dumbed Down among Us, driving the Point of the Movie again and again.Compelling at times as things open up a bit. The Second Act is a Creepy "Secret Society" set up and the Third Act is Full Blown Action Film Stuff. Containing some Great and Spooky Character Actors and Hal Holbrook in a Typical Role is another "That's all I can stand..." judge who states..."At least I tried to do something." Yaphet Kotto is a Cop and is underused.The Movie Tries to do something but only Half Succeeds. Overall, Not a Bad Movie but leaves a lot to be desired and is Surprisingly Flat considering the Powerful Subject Matter. Worth a Watch.

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.

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.