Considering my recent review of DEXTER, and some of the comments made by other authors here, you might find a similar strain of questioning -

When is Vigilantism permissible? How? To what degree? Who should be able to approve it? Why?

Leviticus - "An eye for an eye - a tooth for a tooth."

Do two wrongs ever make a right? Before you decide, what about our lost Freedoms under the PATRIOT ACT? Is it right to set aside Habeas Corpus?

Is there a legal process for rescinding BAD LAWS? How do we find out? What about Victims?

Questions - Questions - Questions ...

The Star Chamber

Copyright: 02-22-08 - Tom Hyland


This movie was made in 1983, and starred: Michael Douglas, Hal Holbrook, Yaphet Kotto, James B. Sikking, and Sharon Gless.

In a nutshell, nine Judges are totally disgusted with setting vicious felons free, because of legal technicalities. So they form their own secret panel, in order to see Justice done, in a Vigilante fashion.

First of all, realize that this setting was twenty-five years ago, and the heinous crimes portrayed way back then, are still prevalent today. In fact, I believe that the types, numbers, and percentages of offenses are even worse now!

I originally saw this film in the theater, and tonight, as I watched it again, I was probably more impressed with the plot. By all means, there are pros and cons in considering Law, and some serious difficulties in choosing sides. Both the Prosecution, and the Defense, have tremendous tasks to accomplish. Who would you side with?

A lot of soul-searching is necessary, if you truly seek Justice, especially in its raw, unrestrained form. There are some good action scenes in this movie, as well as some fine acting.

I won’t tell you the surprise ending, but if you think about how the SOPRANOS ended - some of your own imagination must be employed.

On a scale of One to Ten, I’d give it at least a Nine! Let me know what you think.

TKH.