The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes.

Review #721: The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes.

Cast
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Dr. Watson), Ida Lupino (Ann Brandon), George Zucco (Professor Moriarty), Alan Marshal (Jerrold Hunter), and E. E. Clive (Inspector Bristol) Directed by Alfred L. Werker (#676 - Shock)

Review
It's been a while (#583 - The Hound of the Baskervilles) since I reviewed a Sherlock Holmes film, and it's only fitting that it's the second film of the Rathbone series, which had 14 films in total in seven years. In fact, this was the second Holmes film with Rathbone released in 1939, because in those days, films were made really quickly, with the gap between the two films being only 5 months (and 1 day). It is in this film that the phrase "Elementary, my dear Watson" came into popularity, and while it wasn't a phrase used in the Doyle stories (though it was used in stage adaptations before this film), it has entered into Holmes' lore mainly because of the quality of this movie, which is exceptional. The interactions that Rathbone has with Bruce are well paced and make for a good duo, though his scenes with Zucco are also well done, especially their last scene, which has some good action. It may be a little typical at times, but it at least is a good way to spend 81 minutes while watching Rathbone steal the show (as usual) and see a little mystery play out nicely.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Twice Upon a Time.

Review #720: Twice Upon a Time.

Cast
Lorenzo Music (Ralph, The All-Purpose Animal), Julie Payne (Flora Fauna), Marshall Efron (Synonamess Botch), Hamilton Camp (Greensleeves), James Cranna (Rod Rescueman / Scuzzbopper / Frivoli Foreman), Paul Frees (Narrator / Chef of State / Judges / Bailiff), and Judith Kahan (The Fairy Godmother) Directed by John Korty and Charles Swenton.

Review
Twice Upon a Time is 75 minutes of uniqueness. It utilizes improv comedians, which means that the movie has an array of unpredictability, which also could be said for the animation. Lumage is one of the more unique processes utilized for a movie. The animators move prefabricated cut-out plastic pieces on a light table, somewhat like cutout animation. There are also multiple versions of this movie, one with a different set up involving Greensleves, one with Efron's character being raunchier (read: less PG), and this one. The one I saw on TCM Underground (which show cult films that aren't as well known late at night) was rated PG, though make what you will about the version you might see. Oh, and George Lucas was executive producer. Anyway...how's the movie? It's a Hodge-podge of characters, silliness, live action mixed with Lumage, and a story that make for a strangely satisfying movie. The characters are zany, but they seem perfect for a movie that takes a story that seems normal at first and turns it into a madcap adventure that isn't all that predictable. Lorenzo Music is a highlight, mainly because his voice fits well with how the movie goes, especially when paired with a silent character, such as Mumford, who looks just like a Tramp lookalike. The villain is over the top evil, and it works for a movie like this, which moves well. Is it dated? You could argue that, but it's a time capsule of creativity that while not particularly new age, is interesting to watch. One bright side is that some people (Henry Selick & David Fincher - both in directing films like Coraline and The Social Network, and Harley Jessup - production design and visual effects, even winning an Oscar) went on to have careers in film after this, and maybe that helps make the movie have a little legacy of its own. Take the movie for what it is: One of a kind, though with different versions.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Mystery of the Wax Museum.

Review #719: Mystery of the Wax Museum.

Cast
Lionel Atwill (Ivan Igor), Fay Wray (Charlotte Duncan), Glenda Farrell (Florence Dempsey), Frank McHugh (Jim), Allen Vincent (Ralph Burton), Gavin Gordon (George Winton), Edwin Maxwell (Joe Worth), and Holmes Herbert (Dr. Rasmussen) Directed by Michael Curtiz (#125 - Casablanca and #416 - Yankee Doodle Dandy, #505 - The Adventures of Robin Hood, and #529 - Mildred Pierce)

Review
Remember House of Wax (#271) with Vincent Price? Mystery of the Wax Museum is the original version, made by the same studio (Warner Brothers) that would make the remake 20 years later, with this movie based off an unpublished story, The Wax Works. This movie utilizes two-color Technicolor, a unique system utilized in some films (like the 1925 version of Phantom of the Opera), although the reception to the system was lukewarm due to the perceived artificial qualities it projected. This was one of only three films that Warner Brothers had under this system, and the last. Anyway, the movie's color actually helps set the mood very nicely because its artificial quality here makes the movie seem creepy, which for a movie like this, works. It works for a mystery like this, which moves quickly and never seems padded, setting its characters up and their motivations just fine. Atwill and Wray are the highlights, both having good scenes, sometimes together. The movie is quickly resolved, and I'm impressed at how it managed to be just effective, without having to resort to much final thoughts. It's a movie that looks good in its own way while being a fine little mystery that can be good for anyone looking for a quick 30's film to watch.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Brainstorm (1983).

Review #718: Brainstorm.

Cast
Christopher Walken (Michael Brace), Natalie Wood (Karen Brace), Louise Fletcher (Lillian Reynolds), Cliff Robertson (Alex Terson), Alan Fudge (Robert Jenkins), Joe Dorsey (Hal Abramson), Jason Lively (Chris Brace), Jordan Christopher (Gordy Forbes), and Donald Hotton (Landan Marks) Directed by Douglas Trumbull.

Review
Brainstorm deserves credit for its effects, which are still impressive, regardless of how old the movie is. Which is good, considering the rest of the movie isn't as impressive. Granted, the movie does have a creative premise: A research team creates a helmet that lets someone record their experience (such as racing a car, riding a horse - physically and mentally I might add) onto the device to be experienced later. Oh, and there's some evil management who want to make it militarized. I liked the movie more when it showed the helmet and what it does than the plot involving the company because it felt enjoyable and it felt less forced. The characters are fine, but this is one of those movies where the effects overtake the acting...which has been done before with other science fiction films, but it proves to be a distraction when the effects aren't chugging themselves out. I feel like the movie wants to just be about the helmet and one's experience with it instead of "nyah, we want the helmet for mind control!" Walken and Wood are at least enjoyable, though I wish Fletcher was given more time on screen. Robertson is just okay. Admittedly, the movie had a troubled production, in fact this movie was released nearly two years after Natalie Wood's death in November 1981, on a production break. After MGM tried to lock Trumbull out, the movie was finally let back into production, albeit with limited release and publicity, which ensued the movie's box office failure, and Trumbull has never directed a movie since. The movie was originally going to utilize Trumbull's Showscan process, which uses a quicker frame per second rate...but the cost of retrofitting theaters was too much for the studio. The movie does utilize a different ratio for the virtual reality scenes as opposed to the normal scenes (which is smaller), which is nice. It could be indicative of the future....someday. But until that day comes, it's an okay movie that had some troubled history.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Logan's Run.

Review #717: Logan's Run.

Cast
Michael York (Logan 5), Jenny Agutter (Jessica 6), Richard Jordan (Francis 7), Roscoe Lee Browne (Box), Farrah Fawcett (Holly 13), Michael Anderson Jr. (Doc), and Peter Ustinov (The Old Man) Directed by Michael Anderson.

Review
Logan's Run was a toss up to rate for a while. On the one hand, Logan's Run is a product of its time that is an example of a movie set many, many years into the future (the year 2274, with the book being 2116), which is beneficial in the sense that the movie has free reign to guess on a future none of us will ever see, making the movie have a chance to run wild with the idea of a utopia, the buildings, and...how we dress. On the other hand, it could be argued the movie is dated specifically by the effects, which is why Hollywood has been trying to remake this film for years (and failing at it, I might add), but Hollywood remade Robocop, and that ended...oh you already know. Logan's Run is the kind of movie you'd watch late at night and enjoy, but whether you'd enjoy the movie for how it deals with a utopia's effects on society...or how it treats itself in terms of clothing/effects is another story. I'm trying to make this review as anti wishy-washy as possible, so I'll just say that the movie is fine. York and Agutter are good, and they do make a fine pairing together, which is to the movie's advantage. You could make fun of the clothing...or Box. Box is a robot who lives in an ice cave. Take one look at him, and you'll see. Oddly enough, I was laughing at the part with the cats, because the second half of the movie has a bunch of cats meowing and moving around while the movie plays. But maybe I'm just weird. Jordan is okay, and the supporting cast as a whole is passable, it's one of those kind of movies. I was surprised to see that a bunch of locations in Texas were used (including a Water Gardens), mainly because it's not everyday you see your state in a credits sequence. The effects...are what they are. Monorails are cool to watch, and even the shots of the city look like they took a good deal of time to make, and I even saw a credit for matte painting, which isn't as easy it may seem, so I can give the movie credit. If you enjoy the movie (seriously or mockingly), the effects won't get in the way (rather they might actually be beneficial) of a good time. If you find it's not exactly up to code with your standards...the effects will kill the mood even more. But I can't help but enjoy this strange gem. Maybe you will too. Whether a remake will be made in the future or not, appreciating the movie for what it is makes sense too.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Horror Express.

Review #716: Horror Express.

Cast
Christopher Lee (Professor Sir Alexander Saxton), Peter Cushing (Dr. Wells), Alberto de Mendoza (Father Pujardov), Julio Peña (Inspector Mirov), Silvia Tortosa (Countess Irina Petrovski), Telly Savalas (Captain Kazan), George Rigaud (Count Marion Petrovski), Víctor Israel (Maletero – the Baggage Man), Ángel del Pozo (Yevtushenko), and Helga Liné (Natasha) Directed by Eugenio Martín.

Review
It has been over two weeks since the passing of Christopher Lee, who I've covered numerous times on this show in the past. It cannot be stated enought how much respect I and other people had for his talent, on and off the screen. He did voices for some of Tim Burton's movies, played characters in both Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, released albums of his singing (including metal!), was related to Ian Fleming (and even played a Bond villain once), and was in over 300 films in a very long film career. And he was also Dracula. As such, I decided to watch this film as a tribute along with the fact that it also stars Peter Cushing (who was one of Lee's closest friends) and Telly Savalas, who also once played a Bond villain. Also, Horror Express is an adaptation of Who Goes There?, which has been adapted three other times into films, two of which I have covered (The Thing From Another World and The Thing) already. As you could tell, the movie takes place on a train, in 1906. This time around, Lee plays a good guy, and he shares a great rapport with Cushing that makes the movie a little more interesting. What's interesting is that this was a Spanish/British production, which is why the movie is also known as "Pánico en el Transiberiano". The movie is what you might expect from a Hammer movie (except that it's not)- visually pleasing, coupled with some blood, and with a bit of overblown acting. But at least it's an enjoyable movie...if you're in the mood for some horror that does get interesting around the last 30 minutes, and then Savalas' character comes in late to provide some enjoyment. It's a 70's movie that has its moments of terror (especially with the lights off), and its moments of overblown stuff with de Mendoza's characters, but the movie is still at least passable. Is it as good as other movies that Lee and Cushing did together? No, but it is at least a mildly enjoyable flick that passes on quickly with some thrills of its own.

Lastly, thank you Christopher Lee, for everything that you did for cinema. We will never forget your contributions.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Crossfire.

Review #715: Crossfire.

Cast
Robert Young (Captain Finlay), Robert Mitchum (Sgt. Peter Keeley), Robert Ryan (Montgomery), Gloria Grahame (Ginny Tremaine), Paul Kelly (Mr. Tremaine), Sam Levene (Joseph Samuels), Jacqueline White (Mary Mitchell), Steve Brodie (Floyd Bowers), and George Cooper (Cpl. Arthur Mitchell) Directed by Edward Dmytryk.

Review
For some of you reading this at home, a b-movie refers to a movie that was low-budget, or a movie that wasn't exactly promoted as the marquee for a studio's year, though b-movies could also be profitable, given that they were fast and cheap to make and screen to theaters, ranging from science fiction to westerns, while used as part of a double feature. Ah, a film noir. But it is not so much a film noir as it is a comment on perception of others and how hatred sometimes meshes with that perception, with deadly results like this film. It's a quick movie, but it's a movie that knows what it wants to do, and it succeeds at being an effective look into people and prejudice. Young and Mitchum are good at chemistry in regards to solving the case, and the time they have on screen together is riveting. For a movie that has few characters, Crossfire manages to be engaging and compelling enough to watch to the end, to the inevitable conclusion, though at least it's a movie that tries to deliver a message while being quick and enjoyable. Whether it succeeds at being engaging is up to the viewer, but it does in my book. And I avoided making references to the board game Crossfire for the entirety of the review, which I guess is surprising. As for the movie, I'd recommend it for anyone looking to watch late 40's cinema with a touch of noir.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Inside Out.

Review #714: Inside Out.

Cast

Amy Poehler (Joy), Phyllis Smith (Sadness), Bill Hader (Fear), Lewis Black (Anger), Mindy Kaling (Disgust), Kaitlyn Dias (Riley Anderson), Diane Lane (Riley's mom), Kyle MacLachlan (Riley's father), and Richard Kind (Bing Bong) Directed by Pete Docter (#074 - Monsters, Inc and #288 - Up) and Ronnie del Carmen.

Review

This is the 11th film I've reviewed that came right from my local movie theater (#240: Paranorman, #372: 42, #396: Iron Man 3, #425: Pacific Rim, #540: The Lego Movie, #571 - Captain America: The Winter Soldier, #582 - Godzilla, #584 - X-Men: Days of Future Past, #626 - Guardians of the Galaxy, #706 - Avengers: Age of Ultron), and the first involving a Pixar film. Is it good? Having joyful tears by the end is a good indicator. The animation is the first sign, because it just looks so beautiful to watch, from Abstract thought chamber to the way the characters project in terms of appearance, especially Joy and her glow, but also the way the various places in Riley's mind look. Also, Bing Bong is probably one of the best imaginary friends I've ever heard of. But where the movie really shines is how it utilizes its cast in terms of the unique story that manages to be funny and sweet with the amount of charm it has. My favorite emotion in this was Sadness, and maybe its because Smith makes that emotion more than just depression incarnate. Poehler and Black's emotions come a close tie for second, mainly because it's hard to not appreciate both her overbearing joy and his booming voice that is oddly a delight to watch get angry. The rest of the cast is also pretty good, and I especially like seeing the five emotions interact with each other, watching their squabbles along with their successes. It's a charming movie that looks great and is beyond enjoyable to go through. The theme of the movie on emotions is an interesting and well developed one, especially given how it's utilized in the end, which makes it even better. It's a movie that isn't just funny, it's a movie that's emotional (literally) and brilliant. Go see it, if you haven't already.

Note: I am aware that some might compare it to Herman's Head, a show that had a concept similar to this in the 1990s. But hey, everything's relative, so don't worry too much. Or care, but whatever. By the way, Lava was a short film that went before this film, and it's alright. And stay for the credits!

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars. 

And When Did You Last See Your Father?

Review #713: And When Did You Last See Your Father?

Cast
Jim Broadbent (Arthur Morrison), Colin Firth (Blake Morrison), Juliet Stevenson (Kim Morrison), Gina McKee (Kathy Morrison), Claire Skinner (Gillian), Sarah Lancashire (Beaty), Matthew Beard (Teenage Blake), and Elaine Cassidy (Sandra) Directed by Anand Tucker.

Review
Today is Father's Day. As such, I decided this would be fitting. I've also decided to split the review into two paragraphs, mainly to indicate two feelings of mine today. Anyway, let me get to the movie first. When it comes to 90 minute movies, the good news is that if it is bad, it ends quickly enough. However if the movie is actually pretty decent for itself, then that's just bad news, mainly because you feel disappointed that it's already over. But at least with this movie, I enjoyed the time I had with the film, mainly due to the chemistry that Broadbent and Firth have with each other. Granted, the movie has more to do with flashbacks between Broadbent and Beard's characters, but either way, I enjoy Broadbent mostly because he is really the glue that holds the movie together, and any scene with him has its share of joy but also a tinge of sadness, given the circumstances of the movie's set up, right near the end of his character's life. It's a movie that has beautiful sets and color to it, which I suppose helps make the movie easier to watch. It has its moments of emotion, and while it may seem that there isn't much of a resolution, I suppose that was the point, because ultimately life doesn't always have such endings. But oh well. Is it a perfect film? No, but at least it manages to give you a look into how lives always seem to inter wine with other lives over time, while also being engaging to watch. It's a decent movie that goes with Father's Day and seeing Broadbent and Firth shine together.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

And now, my other thoughts on the day (this is not a continuation of the review, but I wanted to include this for this occasion): I chose this movie mainly because it reminded me of my father and myself in a way. My last day with my father could be either the last time I saw him alive (just a few days before, where we didn't really have much of a conversation), or on his death day, which I would characterize as one of the days I would not wish upon anyone. My father had his secrets, which spilled onto the surface after his death, but they did not make my perception of him negative, rather they made me realize that sometimes even our idols and the people we look up to have their quirks and differences. How we deal with it is what matters. I remember how I used to (lightly) head tap my father when I was younger, and how he used to hold me up and laugh. I remember giving him a card on Father's Day mainly because when you're young, real gifts are hard to imagine both fiscally and feasibly. But he always seemed to like it. He was tempered with anger towards things in his life, and I think I inherited some of that anger towards the little things. But he always seemed to have laughter, too. He was my father, and throughout all of his flaws and quirks, I appreciated what he did for me and my mother. Lastly, I apologize if this went on too long, but I just want to say one last thing: I love you, Dad. Thank you.

The Thing (1982).

Superseded by better review: https://movienightcentral.blogspot.com/2022/06/redux-thing-1982.html

Review #712: The Thing.

Cast
Kurt Russell (MacReady), Keith David (Childs), Wilford Brimley (Blair), Donald Moffat (Garry), T. K. Carter (Nauls), Richard Masur (Clark), David Clennon (Palmer), Charles Hallahan (Norris), Richard Dysart (Copper), Peter Maloney (Bennings), Joel Polis (Fuchs), and Thomas G. Waites (Windows) Directed by John Carpenter (#068 - Halloween and #634 - Escape from New York)

Review
The original movie (#519 - The Thing from Another World) was good in being straightforward and not playing fast and loose with the tension while being a fine movie. The Thing? It flat out rules. You could ask yourself two questions on how to judge special effects. How do you judge them: On how they look or the level of believability? Does it matter if the effects are practical or CGI? As for me, I go on how they work with regards to the movie, which in this case is exceptional. Some criticize the movie for the disgusting nature of the effects, and it didn't help that E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial and Blade Runner were released around the same time as this, which is why the movie wasn't a big success when it came out in 1982. It's been over thirty years, but the movie has a cult following, and it could be attributed to the movie being successful at establishing tense drama, the chiller atmosphere, Kurt Russell's beard, the soundtrack, or the creativity of the special effects. The cast does a good job at establishing tension within the crew, with Russell being effective as the leader and at handing the action. The atmosphere is as tense as can be in the Antarctic, especially with the sets and chilly weather and mood. I like the music mainly because it is the perfect tone for a movie as tense as this one, especially the opening theme, which reoccurs throughout. This is a movie for late night viewership, for anyone who just wants a good thrill while also experiencing 80's cinema, Brimley's outburst midway through, and a Carpenter classic.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Mothra.

Review #711: Mothra.

Cast
Frankie Sakai (Zen-Chan Fukuda), Kyoko Kagawa (Michi Hanamura), Hiroshi Koizumi (Dr. Shin'ichi Chujo), Ken Uehara (Dr. Harada), Jerry Itou (Clark Nelson), Yumi Itou & Emi Itou (The Shoubijin), Takashi Shimura (Sadakatsu Amano), Masamitsu Tayama (Shinji Tyuujou), and Tetsu Nakamura (Nelson's Henchman) Directed by Ishirō Honda (#167 - Godzilla)

Review
It has been way too long since I've reviewed a world cinema film, and what better one to do than Mothra, a Japanese film involving a monster (also known as kaiju), in this case a caterpillar/moth. Unlike Godzilla, the movie is less grim with regards to the monster and more light on the tone, with vocal group The Peanuts starring as twin fairies. Strangely enough, it all works well. It's a fun flick mainly because it manages to just be itself without going overboard in silliness. The color of the movie looks good, especially with the sets, looking so crisp. I like the effects on Mothra, especially after she transforms. Is it dated? Sure, but sometimes dated can be a good thing, and with this movie, it's a plus mainly because it's too much joy to dislike. The characters seem to be having a good time, and I like the main three actors (Sakai, Kagawa, Koizumi), who seem to click well. The villain (Itou) is hammy, but perfect for something like this. It may not be as thrilling as Godzilla or have the same impact, but Mothra makes up for it by just being a movie filled with bridled joy.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Fly.

Review #710: The Fly.

Cast
David Hedison (Andre Delambre), Patricia Owens (Helene Delambre), Vincent Price (Francois Delambre), Herbert Marshall (Inspector Charas), Kathleen Freeman (Emma), Betty Lou Gerson (Nurse Andersone), and Charles Herbert (Philippe Delambre) Directed by Kurt Neumann.

Review
The 1950s were a time for movies about science experiments (with a good portion involving atomic weapons) and how even the best intended experiments can go wrong. This is a movie that has really good actors that make for good entertainment, especially Vincent Price, who as usual is enjoyable to watch. Hedison and Owens do a pretty good job together, especially in one of the more iconic scenes of the movie, where Hedison's character reveals the result of his experiment to his wife. It's a chilling scene that also looks really good to watch, mainly due to the way the laboratory is lit, dark in some spots and lighted in others, which gives a really good contrast. The effects themselves are good, and it is used to good effect at the end of the movie, which ends pretty surprisingly. The movie takes itself seriously and doesn't really become too schlocky for itself, while having good moments.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Most Dangerous Game.

Review #709: The Most Dangerous Game.

Cast
Joel McCrea (Sanger "Bob" Rainsford), Fay Wray (Eve Trowbridge), Leslie Banks (Count Zaroff), Robert Armstrong (Martin Trowbridge), Noble Johnson (Ivan), Steve Clemente (Tartar), and Dutch Hendrian (Servant) Directed by Irving Pichel (#617 - Destination Moon) and Ernest B. Schoedsack (#283 - King Kong and #604 - Mighty Joe Young)

Review
The movie was filmed on the jungle sets of King Kong, with Wray and Armstrong being used for both films, while filmed at night. Strangely enough, this movie managed to be finished first, though it being only barely an hour long in length sure helped. As for the movie, it's pretty good. It has a good atmosphere, and I attribute that mostly to the sets, which make the movie look really nice. McCrea does a good job as the lead, maybe because he just gels well in the short time he has, especially with Wray, who as usual is good at being both a lead and screaming in terror. Banks is a decent villain, he isn't too over the top, and he does do well in the action scenes. In total, the movie is fine mainly because it just gets going quick, even beginning with a ship wreck. I like how it seems there will be three survivors who will be the main focus...and then two of them suddenly get swept away. I guess it means to never assume you've survived a ship wreck, which isn't the worst lesson I've heard. Anyway, the movie is enjoyable and quick, and if you like 30's cinema or thriller movies, you'll like this one.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Vampire Bat.

Review #708: The Vampire Bat.

Cast
Lionel Atwill (Dr. Otto von Niemann), Fay Wray (Ruth Bertin), Melvyn Douglas (Karl Breettschneider), Maude Eburne (Gussie Schnappmann), George E. Stone (Kringen), Dwight Frye (Herman Gleib), Robert Frazer (Emil Borst), and Rita Carlisle (Martha Mueller) Directed by Frank R. Strayer.

Review
Well, it's certainly a quick movie. At 63 minutes, this is a movie that was released just a month before another Atwill-Wray movie would be released (Mystery of the Wax Museum), but this one was released by Majestic Pictures, a studio known for cheap flicks made quickly. And since this is in public domain, you can find this movie anywhere on the Internet. But the question is would you want to? That depends. The sets look nice and scenic, fitting well with what the movie is trying to do so quickly. The characters are fine, save for Eburne's comic relief character, an anxious panicky character who almost ruins the balance that Wray and Douglas have with each other. Atwill is a good lead character (who pops up in numerous 1930's films). The ending is at least something different from most vampire films, though your reaction may vary on your level of disbelief. Extra points for having Dwight Frye as a supporting character, which is always welcome. If you're up for some quick cheap horror thrills, I'd say this movie is for you. Is it an old flick? As the old saying goes, 82 is the new 40. Or 30.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.