Skip to main content

Who gave you the crusade franchise? Tell me that.

The Star Chamber

(SPOILERS) Peter Hyams’ conspiracy thriller might simply have offered sauce too weak to satisfy, reining in the vast machinations of an all-powerful hidden government found commonly during ’70s fare and substituting it with a more ’80s brand that failed to include that decade’s requisite facile resolution. There’s a good enough idea here – instead of Charles Bronson, it’s the upper echelons of the legal system resorting to vigilante justice – but The Star Chamber suffers from a failure of nerve, repenting its premise just as it’s about to dig into the ramifications.

It seems that was largely down to director Peter Hyams, whose ’80s run comprises a string of impressively “not quite there” pictures. He opted to revise Roderick Taylor’s screenplay: “I said to Sherry Lansing, who was the head of Twentieth Century-Fox and is a woman I will love till the day I die, ‘I'll make this movie but I gotta re-write it from page one. I have to change it from a Donald Trump Republican script to a left-wing, anti-vigilante movie.’ My idea was to whip everyone up into a vigilante frame of mind and then pull the rug out from under them, and tell them that they're wrong”. Which is fine enough, if obvious, and ultimately the movie’s weakness, as the shift in perspective of Michael Douglas’ Superior Court Judge Steven Hardin is too easy, too inevitable.

The early section of The Star Chamber offers a convincing selection of technical breaches, whereby Hardin is compelled to dismiss cases on the basis that the method of search, seizure or arrest was flawed or could be disputed. One of these, in particular, involves particularly grisly child murder and pornography, and Hardin is both chagrined at having to throw the case out and repudiated by the victim’s father (Hyams regular James Sikking, who can also be seen in Capricorn One, Outland and Narrow Margin).

Hardin is already under consideration by his mentor, Judge Caulfield (Hal Holbrook) for admission to the clandestine Star Chamber, a group of judges taking matters into their own hands (well, those of a hitman who carries out their dirty work, at any rate). Their title is taken from a court reputedly established under Henry VII, meting out justice where other courts were unable to, and one might reasonably regard the premise itself as a pulled punch; shadowy upper echelons are more commonly considered unanswerable. Added to which, a keen interest in genuine justice and moral rectitude isn’t generally part of their repertoire (or, if legit, coercion into toeing the line where necessary might be expected).

An out-and-out right-wing approach, if more familiar, might at least have exerted more nuance, if you’re willing to read between the lines (ie Dirty Harry being at once grimly cathartic and a vilification of the character). Hardin, though, finds himself crossing the line from upholding the law to breaking it very easily – all it takes is Sikking committing suicide – but almost immediately recants when he learns the duo identified as responsible (Joe Regalbuto and Kubrick-alike Don Calda) didn’t actually do it, and attempts to have the hit cancelled, meeting a brick wall when he takes this to his fellow chamber members.

I’d have been more impressed had Hardin doubled down, but Hyams instead pursues a third-act thrill ride as Hardin visits a derelict warehouse straight out of Blade Runner – also a PCP lab – and is threatened by the duo he’s attempting to warn. Hyams makes this section a tense, edge-of-the-seat experience, and it’s a reminder of the limits of a proficient journeyman who fails to recognise their limitations as a writer. It’s a nice touch that the hitman (Keith Buckley) dispenses with the PCP fiends and is about to do the same to Hardin before Detective Lowes (Yaphet Kotto intervenes), but if this had been made half a decade earlier, you can bet the final shot of the movie (Hardin and Lowes listening in on a Chamber meeting) would not have offered such a neat “order restored” promise.

In which regard, Douglas was still in the nascent in movies at this stage, having left The Streets of San Francisco and scored hits in supporting roles in Coma and The China Syndrome – both conspiracy thrillers, notably – but eliciting less luck with his stabs at leading man duties (Romancing the Stone would change all that the following year). The earnest fellow isn’t a type that really fits him – he naturally hints at duplicitous, flawed or untrustworthy – but he’s well supported by Holbrook (no stranger to conspiracy fare as a one-time Deep Throat). Kotto’s great in an underserviced cop role (his conversation with Douglas at a diner is a highlight). Sharon Gless was a surprise to see, not just for a movie role but also a girlfriend (well, wife) one. Jack Kehoe (Jerry Geisler) is a defence attorney who does his job too well.

Adding to the somewhat-at-odds, ’70s-refitted-for-the-’80s vibe is Michael Small’s score, evoking his earlier work on The Parallax View and Marathon Man. Richard N Hannah is credited as cinematographer but Hyams is all over the movie’s look (and there was a lawsuit, it seems, identifying this as a union violation). No doubt Arnie would claim it’s much too dark, but I think it looks great. The Star Chamber isn’t a great movie, though. It’s an engaging enough way to pass the time, but probably exactly the kind of competently unremarkable fare most characterise of Hyams’ oeuvre.

Popular posts from this blog

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

You ruined every suck-my-silky-ass thing!

The Matrix Resurrections (2021) (SPOILERS) Warner Bros has been here before. Déjà vu? What happens when you let a filmmaker do whatever they want? And I don’t mean in the manner of Netflix. No, in the sequel sense. You get a Gremlins 2: The New Batch (a classic, obviously, but not one that financially furthered a franchise). And conversely, when you simply cash in on a brand, consequences be damned? Exorcist II: The Heretic speaks for itself. So in the case of The Matrix Resurrections – not far from as meta as The New Batch , but much less irreverent – when Thomas “Tom” Anderson, designer of globally successful gaming trilogy The Matrix , is told “ Our beloved company, Warner Bros, has decided to make a sequel to the trilogy ” and it’s going ahead “with or without us”, you can be fairly sure this is the gospel. That Lana, now going it alone, decided it was better to “make the best of it” than let her baby be sullied. Of course, quite what that amounts to in the case of a movie(s) tha

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

It’s always possible to find a good moral reason for killing anybody.

The Assassination Bureau (1969) (SPOILERS) The Assassination Bureau ought to be a great movie. You can see its influence on those who either think it is a great movie, or want to produce something that fulfils its potential. Alan Moore and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen . The just-released (and just-flopped) The King’s Men . It inhabits a post-Avengers, self-consciously benign rehearsal of, and ambivalence towards, Empire manners and attitudes, something that could previously be seen that decade in Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines (and sequel Monte Carlo or Bust , also 1969), Adam Adamant Lives! , and even earlier with Kind Hearts and Coronets , whilst also feeding into that “Peacock Revolution” of Edwardian/Victorian fashion refurbishment. Unfortunately, though, it lacks the pop-stylistic savvy that made, say, The President’s Analyst so vivacious.

This guy’s armed with a hairdryer.

An Innocent Man (1989) (SPOILERS) Was it a chicken-and-egg thing with Tom Selleck and movies? Did he consistently end up in ropey pictures because other, bigger big-screen stars had first dibs on the good stuff? Or was it because he was a resolutely small-screen guy with limited range and zero good taste? Selleck had about half-a-dozen cinema outings during the 1980s, one of which, the very TV, very Touchstone Three Men and a Baby was a hit, but couldn’t be put wholly down to him. The final one was An Innocent Man , where he attempted to show some grit and mettle, as nice-guy Tom is framed and has to get tough to survive. Unfortunately, it’s another big-screen TV movie.