Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Lela The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

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.

Maziun 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.

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.

lastliberal 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.