the_match_maker Rogers and Powell. Two great tastes that don't taste great together. While each in their own right is a good actor/actress, together they lack the chemistry that Powell and Loy have. And it's clear that this film was wanting that chemistry.This movie is straight 'Thin Man-lite'. Right down to the witty byplay that the two leads have. And while it's acceptable, one can not help but think at how much better every line and scene would have been with Loy in the role rather than Rogers.Perhaps the most interesting thing about the plot is that we, the audience, never see the character around which the entire story revolves. The mysterious 'Alice' is never actually shown, everything that happens with her is off screen. That's a rarity to say the least.One other note would be Powell's character's bathroom. That thing is spacious! That's the sort of bathroom anybody would be proud to have in their home/apartment.It's a decent plot, with decent acting, and one could easily see it having to be tweaked in only the most minor of ways to become another one of the 'Thin Man' films. It's worth watching, if only to mentally picture each scene with Loy in it instead of Rogers.

vincentlynch-moonoi The ending of this film is very disappointing. Suddenly it seems as if they ran out of celluloid and we are cheated out of seeing the real ending.Before that, it's a fairly decent mystery. A mysterious actress/singer suddenly (and I do mean suddenly) disappears. So many people -- with varying motives -- are looking for her. But the one who is trying to solve the case is William Powell.If there's a real reason to watch this film, it's William Powell. There's something special about Powell in virtually every film he ever appeared in.Ginger Rogers is "okay" as the female lead, but she seriously pales in the shadow of Myrna Loy in the Thin Man series (which was filmed a year before this movie). It's just not a really good film match.Paul Kelly was somewhat interesting here as a high class gangster. Gene Lockhart had a disappointing role as the butler. You'll notice a few other recognizable character actors, including J. Farrell MacDonald as the Police Inspector.Again, the reason to watch this film is William Powell, though the basic story is decent. But, it's such a let down after "The Thin Man".

dougdoepke An actress mysteriously flees the stage during a play, eventually involving an attorney and his girlfriend in a web of intrigue.The movie's something of an obscure oddity. Odd because the premise is so close to the Thin Man formula of amateur whodunits. Only here it's Powell and girlfriend Rogers instead of Powell and wife Myrna Loy solving the murders. It also comes the same year,1936, as After the Thin Man, the second entry in that MGM series. Since the similarities are so close, I wonder if Star was originally written for the Thin Man series, but something happened that forced a change of studios.Anyway, Star is only a mediocre whodunit, lacking the spark and drollery of Powell and Loy. Frankly, Rogers is miscast in a restrained role that does not play to her domineering, brassy strengths. Pairing her with the polished Powell amounts to a casting mismatch, despite her honorable effort to make the pairing work. Plus the twenty-year age difference unfortunately shows up in the visuals. Perhaps RKO was trying to emulate MGM's Thin Man with a similar entry of its own.The plot is murky, to say the least, and I agree that the suspects, if you can track them, remain a colorless lot. Fortunately, director Roberts adds some atmosphere and suspense, but the script remains a difficulty. Speaking of added touches, the last twist is a fairly unexpected and effective one. All in all, the movie remains pretty obscure, likely because it suffers in comparison to the more sparkling Thin Man series that it so resembles.

mark.waltz Whether playing Philo Vance or Nick Charles, William Powell always served it up with sophistication, a beautiful woman, a little wisecrack and a lot of martinis. On loan to RKO, Powell did two of these. Here, with Ginger Rogers by his side, he gets involved with murder among the theatrical crowd. It is all very nice to look at with smashing art deco sets and a great supporting cast, including Ralph Morgan, Gene Lockhart and Paul Kelly. "Bitch extraordinaire" Vivian Oakland is extremely amusing as the femme fatal. While Ginger is fine, she's not Myrna Loy, and Powell isn't Fred Astaire. Unlike Astaire, William Powell already had "sex" and Rogers doesn't bring anything to the role in the case of class that out-shined the marvelous Loy (paraphrasing a quote by Katharine Hepburn about Astaire and Rogers). The denouncement is clever but for some reason, it is all rather familiar in a way that had been done better.