Watch The Star Chamber For Free

Brilliant and touching

As Good As It Gets

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

An underpublicized 1980s film about civil rights, vigilantism, and the grey areas between law & justice. For the most part, it is thoroughly gripping and immersive. Peter Hyams' direction is first-rate (he is a wizard at shooting chase sequences from a first-person point-of-view); the script (which he co-wrote) is manipulative, to be sure, but also thought-provoking; Michael Douglas is convincing (if a little too young perhaps); Hal Holbrook (playing a character very similar to "Magnum Force", ten years earlier!) and Yaphet Kotto give solid support. And then we come to the weak, rushed ending. Did they run out of budget of something? I literally dropped half a star from my rating (from *** to **1/2 out of 4) in the last 2 minutes. Perhaps this is the rare case of a movie that is too short for its premise.

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.

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.