Jealousy is such a living hell that Claude Chabrol made arguably the definitive film on the subject and literally called it L’Enfer. This is an area of human relations with which Deep Water director Adrian Lyne is very comfortable, having previously directed Fatal Attraction, Indecent Proposal, Lolita (which I find superior to Kubrick’s version), and Unfaithful (loosely based on Chabrol's La Femme Infidèle. Coincidence?). To call this a retread is somewhat of an understatement, but Lyne is wise to have chosen familiar territory for his return from a 20-year break from directing.
Deep Water is likewise a good career move for Ben Affleck; it gets him back on track after he followed the great The Way Back with The Last Duel and The Tender Bar (although Deep Water would have preceded all those films had it not been for covid-related delays; funny how things work). Here is a movie that allows him to give a subtly nuanced performance, and he doesn’t disappoint, taking passive-aggressiveness and elevating it into an art form.
Affleck now joins his BFF Matt Damon as actors who have shined in roles based on characters created by Patricia Highsmith (and indeed this is how one might imagine Tom Ripley’s married life to be). Ana de Armas is also quite good as Melinda, Vic’s (Affleck) wife, a thoroughly despicable bitch on wheels whose only redeeming quality is Vic’s unconditional love for her.
Oh, he loves her with almost all his heart. I say ‘almost’ because his heart may or may not be able to pump enough blood to a certain other organ – thus it is tacitly agreed that Melinda has the freedom to find solace elsewhere, usually in the arms of intellectually challenged younger men. This arrangement is no secret among the couple’s friends because Melinda is also an alcoholic with zero self-awareness.
Vic dismisses the whole thing in public with a blend of dry wit, deadpan sarcasm, and self-deprecating humor (which provides some of the best dialogue in the film) that can turn ambiguously menacing at the drop of hat, especially when he finds himself alone with one of Melinda’s boytoys.
In addition to Chabrol, Lyne puts me in mind of iconoclastic British filmmaker Peter Greenaway – and not just because Vic’s pet snails remind me of A Zed & Two Noughts. I generally find movies where characters literally get away with murder in one way or another to be immoral; the few exceptions to this rule include films like Greenaway's in which there is no conventional morality to speak of in the first place. In Deep Water, no major, plot-relevant character is innocent, and they all get what they deserve – even when, like Vic, they get what they want.

Ben Affleck ("Vic) is a successful man married to the gorgeous "Melinda" (Ana de Armas). Unfortunately for him, though, she wants - well, has - more of an open marriage than he might like. Indeed, she frequently all but flaunts her usually handsome and younger lovers in front of him and their friends. When one of her coterie goes missing,"Vic" tells his successor "Jonas" (Dash Mihok) that he killed him with an hammer. True or false? Soon rumours abounds, made worse when one of her other beaux "Charlie" (Jacob Elordi) is found floating in the pool! Is he the culprit? Well, to be honest I didn't care. Affleck is nowhere near his best with this preposterous nonsense. Ana de Arias has done some stinkers lately, and this is just the latest. Just taking her clothes off and swearing provocativly isn't acting. The ending is hilariously bad and all told this is just a poor effort from a declining Adrian Lyne that is as forgettable as it is terrible. An established cast is no substitute for a good story with good writing. Waste of everyone's time, this.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/deep-water-spoiler-free-review
"Deep Water sells itself as an erotic thriller, but it lacks precisely those same components. Adrian Lyne tries to make a comeback after a twenty-year absence from cinema, but Zach Helm and Sam Levinson's screenplay holds too many problems.
The protagonists couldn't be more awful people in an incredibly toxic relationship that's frustrating to watch, but their lack of development and inexistent arcs make the narrative feel repetitive, predictable, and lacking intensity.
The messy approach to the secondary characters and subplots contributes to an absolutely disastrous script, where not even a traditional third act can be found.
In the end, Ben Affleck and Ana de Armas are actually good, so there's something to appreciate."
Rating: D

Walt Disney's classic film, 101 Dalmatians, may not be completely original as it is based on a previous book, but it has turned its characters into beloved favorites, especially Pongo and Purdy. The movie will make you fall in love with all the adorable puppies like Lucky, Penny, Patch, and Freckles.
The animation is superb with just the right amount of music that doesn't overwhelm the storyline but does give us the memorable song of Cruella Deville. Speaking of the villain, Cruella is an iconic and fantastically over-the-top character, with Horace and Jasper adding to the trio's incredible dynamic.
The film is a delightful experience from start to finish, a complete classic that has been a box office success and is one of Walt Disney's triumphs. Moving forward, the live-action films, 101 Dalmatians and 102 Dalmatians, are based on the cartoon and offer a fresh take on the story with Glenn Close's portrayal of Cruella Deville being particularly outstanding.
While the movies may have a few plot holes, they are still top-notch entertainment. The sequel, 101 Dalmatians Part 2 in the Animated Series, focuses on Patch's adventures in London, adding a new dimension to the beloved story. Although the animated series may not reach the same heights as the original or the movies, it is still worth a watch for fans of the franchise.
Overall, the four films together create an enjoyable and incredible experience. They are definitely worth checking out, with Patch's story adding an extra layer of fun to the beloved Dalmatian universe.

I remember loving this film as a kid. Rewatching the film as an adult, the film does not hold up. I really remember the third act of the film before rewatching the film and it is going to be the only thing I will remember about the film. There are two fun scenes in my opinion: the ending and Cruella De Vil transformation back into her evil self. Glenn close is the only great thing from the film. This is not one you need to seek out if you have not seen it.

Pretty good cast, decent enough effects for its time but a lame movie. Saw this one before years ago, didn't care for it then, opinion remains the same today. Makes complete sense why Spielberg had his name removed. **2.0/5**

Now that's what I call a surprise. After the first "The Strangers" being quite good in my opinion, I didn't put too much hope on the sequel. The first one at least had Liv Tyler, right? "The Strangers: Prey At Night" features no bigger actors, aside from Martin Henderson maybe, but therefore the director of "47 Meters Down" and "The Other Side Of The Door", movies I really enjoyed. And after seeing, he took on the second part here, I was very curious. And he really nailed it. I liked the entire family and with each one being in trouble, I felt the tension rising. The killers were basically doing what they did in the first one, so that stays true to the source material, and then we get this amazing 80s soundtrack throughout the movie. Heck, we can almost enjoy Bonnie Tyler's 'Total Eclipse Of The Heart' in its entire length, while at the same time sitting there with the eyes glued to the screen, because you don't want to miss a single detail. That is some really great directing here and as a result, I like this sequel even much more than the first one. And that is a very great compliment towards the entire cast and crew. Keep up that good work!

I liked a lot of things in this movie that I didn't expect to, and I disliked a lot of the things I thought I'd be on board with, averaging out for a pretty midling experience. I didn't love _The Strangers: Prey at Night_ but I was into it enough that I'd watch it again some day.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

Pretty good, for what it is. 'Bastille Day', or 'The Take' for us in my neck of the woods, is a sound action thriller that suitably entertains.
Idris Elba has played this sorta role many a time but there's no doubting how strongly he performs in such films. He and co-star Richard Madden are sporting distracting (at least to someone who knows them more for their native tongue) accents, but are a solid pairing... their (admittedly somewhat minimal) buddy cop-esque banter isn't the best, though.
Elba also appears in the end credits singing... not to great effect, I gotta say. Don't get me wrong I know that guy can very much do music, it's just that this song is, erm, not his strongest work, let's just say that.
It's largely predictable, though it does things in a manner that kept me interested and enjoying what I was setting eyes on. So it gets a pass from yours truly.

Well this just goes to show that you can put two hot blokes in the same film, set it in Paris, add some car chases and pyrotechnics - and still end up with a dud. Richard Madden (and his terrible attempt at a Nevada accent) is "Mason" an accomplished pickpocket who manages to get himself embroiled in a bombing. Spotted by CCTV, he is soon the quarry of the CIA's "Briar" (Idris Elba) before the latter realises that he is not their protagonist and that it is best the pair unite to thwart the real terrorists who are using a campaign of civil unrest to mask their real criminal intentions. James Watkins actually manages to keep the pace of this moving along quite well, but the story is far too thin and there is precisely no chemistry on screen between the gents, or between anyone and "Zoe" (Charlotte le Bon) who is also mixed up in all this mayhem. Eye candy can really help a film, and to a certain extent it does here but otherwise this is a standard made for television thriller that is light on just about everything. The condescending tones of the CIA in their dealings with their French counterparts was rather irritating too - no wonder Americans are not always overly welcome in Europe! If this was either man pitching to be the next Daniel Craig, then I'd not give up the day job.

**One wrong move made a small time thief a target.**
The first thing is this film came at the worst time in the history of France. If it was set in elsewhere in the world would have had less issue, but the Paris terror attack and this theme had lots of similarity. I mean it was nothing to do with the incident, but the contents are very impactful. Which also might be the reason for the film not doing well. I did not enjoy much this film, for me it was the story that turned me off. It was sympathetic to terrorists in the first half, so I completely hated that part, and then the last 30 or so minutes it got better. I mean not awesome or like that, but just good.
Directed by 'Eden Lake' famed director. Another very familiar story, but altered like it was for the first time in a film. So most of the parts are predictable, but one twist during the beginning of the third act made it look good. Amazing pace, it just keeps getting bigger and bigger going forward. But as we know, those developments were so clichéd. All the actors were okay, and it has some decent stunts as well. I think it is a good timepass film and nothing else..
_6/10_

Been some time since I last watched this one but on a lark, decided to revisit and while not great and certainly a weaker entry amongst Soderbergh's resume, I found it entertaining enough and the raw fight scenes, with no underlying score, was unique at least and I generally enjoy Gina Carano in the lead here. **3.5/5**

Unfortunately this movie is the case of the trailer being a lot better than the movie. I was hoping for some nice revenge-movie with a kick-ass female agent. Unfortunately this movie does not really deliver on that. It is quite slow for starters. Sure, at times Mallory does kick some ass but a lot of the time is spent on flashbacks and much of these are really really slow.
The plot is a very standard and unoriginal one about agent getting double-crossed and subsequently deals out some pay-back. I have no problem with that. It is a valid setting for some nice action. The problem lies in the implementation.
The acting is never anything to write home about. You get the feeling all the characters are just reading of the script in order to get the scenes done and over with. As a consequence you never really get any attachment to neither the heroine nor the bad guys. Most of the movie I just sat and waited for the next action scene to begin. There are quite a few good names in this movie but, sadly, none of them are really allowed to “take the stage” and give any real performance.
The bottom line is a very mediocre and sometimes downright boring movie.

Seen this one a few times over the years and while some scenes were really cheesy due to the visual effects of that era, it still is quite entertaining and solid performances from Neeson and McDormand even with some of the overly dramatic dialogue especially from Neeson. Fine way to spend 90-minutes still.

This is interesting... this is one of those B-Movie gems that is packed full of pro-talent before they really became pro-talent. And that is right down to the Cohens who did uncredited script polishing.
This is worth the watch, even if you are one of those people that hates B-movies... wrongly hates.
And, it's a comic book movie, it is over the top, it is campy, it packs serious action into a short little plot that still manages to be compelling. The MCU could take lessons on story crafting from this.

Full Review:
https://open.spotify.com/episode/6ODe6zr5oNHl6lkcjoOcPB?si
ad71ce959743a3
I recently rewatched Darkman and there is just so much to like about this movie. In comparison to today's superhero overdose, Darkman just sticks to the basics and tells an incredible emotional and captivating story which is real. No over the top CGI, no storylines forced in by studio producers, not really any characters used just as a device, no cut scenes of blatant Easter Eggs and no political agenda in sight. Comedy is used appropriately and not to undercut the tone of particular scenes and characters.
I really miss these kind of movies in today's superhero landscape. I do like the MCU and how they bought these comic book characters to screen, but after watching Darkman (after about 15 years or so) the MCU are doing so much wrong. I loved you could just watch this movie and not have to worry about what is means to the overarching story or where this story and character fit into the larger universe. It also did such a great job of focusing purely on one character and the journey through the pain he has to go through.
I love this movie, it's one of those movies which will always stick in my memory. It's a real testament to great film making and knowing what works.

Enter Darkman.
Sam Raimi’s trial run for the Spider-Man franchise is a whole bunch of fun. Liam Neeson plays Dr. Peyton Westlake, a super scientist who after a major run-in with the villainous Robert G. Durant (Larry Drake), reinvents himself as Darkman, a super-anti-hero who sets about ridding L.A. of its mobsters.
It’s a comic book film that isn’t based on a comic book, Raimi inventing his own tortured protagonist whilst homaging similar beings of eras past. All the silliness of such fare is here of course, overblown violence and colourful characters are frequent, but there’s good thought gone into the revenge theme, while the action sequences are often excellent. The pace hardly sags, as Raimi’s creations move about a Los Angeles that is equally decaying or affluent, and in Neeson the story has a lead actor with swagger, pathos and emotional force in abundance. 7/10

**The biggest problem with this film, full of problems, is the title.**
After seeing this film, I felt the need to read things about it to understand why it is so strange and different from the previous two. The conclusion I reached is the simplest: if there had been another title and no relation to the “Halloween” franchise, I would have had better luck. If we forget the title and put aside our initial expectations, if we try to evaluate it for what it is, it doesn't seem so bad, although it is far from being a film that I would like to see twice.
If you tell me that it is absolutely horrible because it has no relation to its two predecessors, I would have to agree. After two successful films, it was predictable that the public would create expectations, this also happened to me. However, there had to be a logical reason for the film to differ from the others, and the reason is simple: John Carpenter, who at the time owned the rights to the franchise, did not want to make a franchise around the same villain, but a series of totally different movies around Halloween. When being coerced into reusing the villain and continuing the story in “Halloween 2”, he killed him at the end so that he could not be reused, this film being a return to the filmmaker's original plan. What Carpenter failed to understand was what the public wanted, and the dismal failure of this film was solely a result of that lack of understanding.
Directed by Tommy Lee Wallace, who wrote the script together with Carpenter, it has the master's inspiration throughout. The story he tells us is quite creative, it is something original, but it is not a good story. The predictability of the plot is a problem right from the start, so that we already know the film long before we reach the end. The quality of the dialogues seems to vary a little, it is not constant, and the added sci-fi elements seem to be there too much, perhaps more due to the enormous popularity that this genre of fiction acquired at the time than for any real benefit to the plot and the final work. Another problem is the poor conception of the characters, without any ability to empathize with the public, without any relationship with each other and with several stupid situations: for example, the bizarre and cold way in which a character behaves after the strange death of her father, going to the point of getting involved with a woman he doesn't know that well. And this becomes even stranger if we consider the terrible performances of an amateur cast, in which only Dan O’Herlihy manages to stand out in the slightest.
Technically, the film has some points in its favor, starting with high quality cinematography and sets, good filming and good props. The sound effects can be a little too intrusive in some scenes, but in compensation we have a good set of special and visual effects, especially the androids and the entire final part, where they are used more abundantly. The soundtrack is also very good and creates a tense atmosphere that the film manages to manage reasonably.

Wait, what? Halloween? I guess Carpenter had the grandiose idea of expanding the franchise to one movie released around Halloween that was kind of about Halloween...the holiday not the movies.
Mike did die in Halloween II. It was a good idea, one year, one horror movie, all under the same anthology franchise.
Except the audience, after two stellar slasher films wanted Mike, so best laid plans of mice and men and all that.
What we got instead of Mike was a movie that would have been a halfway decent stand alone end of the 70s horror film, one that was atmospheric, moody, and though it was too flawed to be big, it would have been a fair enough start to the franchise...it would have made a bit of money for the seasonal scare fair.
Except....it was called "Halloween III" and all the publicity in the world wouldn't have stopped the public from expecting Mike.
So, "robbed" would be the best phrase to describe how one feels whilst watching this film.
Even now after knowing what it was intended to be...still feel a little robbed. And I am a fan of anthology series, I feel it lets writers and directors tell unique little stories that wouldn't otherwise be made.
Still, Mike was a slasher and after Fred and Jason, you want to see him keep coming back until you vomit.

A Halloween movie with no Michael Meyers? Given most of the sequels were dreck, the third outing is an entertaining watch as a Halloween-themed thriller.

I distinctly remember being in Grade 8 when the film came out, and for four major reasons: 1) The excellent TV commercial, with John Carpenter's spooky music and the spider crawling out of the mouth of the mask; 2) The decent book adaptation written for young adults, that I read at the time, and thoroughly enjoyed; 3) Karen Carpenter died of a heart attack from anorexia nervosa; and 4) Major songs on the radio around that time were 'Centerfold' by The J. Geils Band and 'Bette Davis Eyes' by Kim Carnes. Though I had not yet seen the previous two films and wasn't old enough (the R-rating, and my parents were somewhat strict about that kind of thing), I really wanted to see it, but over the years, I never really got around to it, until recently I found used the entire 'Halloween' franchise on a 10-blu ray pack, and no longer have any sort of excuse, really.
I loved Wallace's work in 'Stephen King's It' (except for the last half-hour, but that's probably the book's fault and not the director's) and I thought his 'Vampires: Los Muertos' was rather underrated, so an added attraction for me was to watch his directorial debut here. He impressed me. I enjoyed the film and all of the extras on its blu ray very much. If you like horror films at all, you should watch this.
Protagonists Tom Atkins and Stacey Nelkin are very good here, and I liked Dan O'Herlihy even better than when I had previously seen him in 'The Virgin Queen', 'Imitation of Life', 'The Cabinet of Caligari', 'Good Against Evil' and the first two 'RoboCop' films, and, as always, Dean Cundey provides excellent cinematographical work and the soundtrack by Carpenter and Alan Hogarth is dependably solid. Don't bother with the negative reviews that came out at the time the film was released: Most people were upset that the film didn't have Michael Myers in it, and didn't give it a chance. Find out for yourself--in my humble opinion, it's worth both purchasing and at least a rewatch.

Conglomerate Carnage.
A different animal to the Halloween films that preceded and followed it, Season of the Witch is slowly but surely gaining an appreciation as a standalone horror film. Gone is Michael Myers’ indestructible killing machine, in his place is the nefarious Conal Cochran (Dan O’Herlihy), the owner of the Silver Shamrock corporation that specialises in Halloween masks. Cochran has a sinister plan this year - and it’s deadly - Dr. Daniel Challis (Tom Atkins) and Ellie Grimbridge (Stacey Nelkin) are caught in the middle of the vile plot and may just be the only salvation to Americana.
With Nigel Kneale involved in the writing process Season of the Witch is delightfully fiendish. There’s definite barbs being stung here about the commercialisation of holiday occasions, Cochran is intent on restoring Halloween to the true meaning of its origins, creating a Silver Shamrock world order in the process. Kneale would take his name off the credits when the studio tampered with his vision, a shame because his core essence remains - even if Cochran as a Warlock Wicker Man type could well have been genius.
With John Carpenter and Debrah Hill over seeing things from their production chairs, the picture had supervision of some standing. Tommy Lee Wallace maybe directing but it feels like a Carpenter movie, from Dean Cundey’s photography - Carpenter’s foreboding synth musical score – and the sharpness of the horror scenes (which are excellent), it’s not hard to see the “non Michael Myers” Halloween series that Carpenter had envisaged after part 2 had been and gone.
Boosted by an irritatingly potent advertisement jingle (a Silver Shamrock variation on London Bridge is Falling Down) that counts down the days to Halloween and the day of carnage, Season of the Witch is consistently gnawing away at the senses. Having Atkins and O’Herlihy propping up the acting helps, both are reliable performers for this material, while the race against time finale has edge of the seat credentials.
It doesn’t all work of course, there’s some drag and the narrative feels schizophrenic at times, while if it wasn’t for Cundey’s camera work then Wallace’s inept direction of scenes would be over exposed. Yet as it asks Halloween franchise fans some forgiveness for not actually being part of the franchise, it delivers a smart sci-fi horror hybrid that’s not without shock and awe. 7/10

**Overall : When it comes to lower-budget horror movies, The Unborn is a pretty solid addition.**
Part of why I enjoyed this movie as much as I did probably had more to do with laughing at my friends who freaked out in the theater than the actual movie itself. But with that being said, the movie is pretty good too! The Unborn has a better cast than a typical horror flick with Gary Oldman and Idris Elba, along with solid performances from Odette Annable and Meagan Good. The quality of the cinematography, editing, and effects would suggest a bigger budget than it actually had. Scare after scare parades through the film. You can feel the influence of producer Michael Bay (Transformers, Bad Boys) in this film and David S. Goyer (Blade: Trinity), which I consider a positive, whereas others probably would not. Some reviews complain about The Unborn's poor character development, but this is a horror movie. Horror isn't a genre known for its well-developed characters. The Unborn is probably not as good as I rated it, but it has great jump scares, good production quality, and a solid cast. What more do you want in a low-budget horror movie?

Poorly conceived (pun intended) supernatural-horror film that is only watchable because of Odette Ystman (not for her acting so much). Gary Oldman is only in this for maybe 20 minutes although gets above title billing; I assume he did this partially as a favor to writer-director David S. Goyer who co-scripted Batman Begins a few years earlier. Idris Elba also has a small role but only 5-10 minutes of screen time himself.
This is one that's been sitting on my shelf for several years, now I know why I've been avoiding watching... **1.5/5**

Sometimes a mystery can be what makes a movie. Sometimes, it feels like flagrant laziness. _The Open House_ is the latter. The acting is fine, and the characters constantly and blatantly saying things like "Isn't it crazy how there could be a person hiding in your house right now?" might get in your head some, but _The Open House_ is a far cry from any sort of actual success.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

Avoid this movie at all costs!
This movie had potential. It started off interesting and I thought it was going somewhere, but in the end it just angered me like no movie in recent memory has. I think the they had no idea where they were going with the story so it just seems like lots of unnecessary bits of plot were added in an attempt to make something "stick". You get nothing in the end aside some a feeling of "I just wasted almost 2 hours of my life!".

It's almost like someone forgot to finish writing this film...
It starts off well enough, even if the basic premise is a little well worn. Son with a bright future loses his father suddenly, so mother and son have to shift to the middle of nowhere to make ends meet and cope with their grief. The house they shift into belongs to a family member who is trying to sell it, so on weekends it is staged as an open house.
Of course as soon as the open house viewings start, strange things start happening. This is where the film starts falling apart. The film-makers can't seem to decide between implying that the occurrences maybe supernatural or someone who came to the viewing but never left. Which is fine to add a little mystery, but the mystery isn't engaging, there is no hook to it. Slightly odd things happen for no real rhyme or reason. You keep expecting there to be a nugget of information as to why they are being targeted, but you get nothing.
When the film finally decides to settle on the menacing slasher route and stick to it, the wheels completely fall off, and this film starts crashing hard. The film spends 3/4 of its running time raising questions and answers none of them, but not in an ambiguous way, just in a sloppy writing way.
There's no explanation, no reason why, no back-story, and the killer is constantly blurred, out of focus or in shadow so you never see what he looks like. Those elements can work, classic films like Duel you never see the psycho truck driver, but at least he has motivation. In Halloween you never know why Michael Myers goes on a rampage but you get a physical sense of what he looks like, even if you don't really get a good look at his face. But combining no back-story stalking, with a complete lack of motivation and no decent look at the killer just doesn't work. You don't care what is happening because there is no reason for it, and not much to look at while it happens. The protagonists might as well be getting attacked by a shadow. There is nothing scary or interesting about the killer, because the killer really is nothing apart from a pair of boots.
There is absolutely nothing under the surface with this film. There is no metaphor, there is nothing to learn, no twist, no insight to grief, no character revelations. Just retreaded clichés poorly packaged to give you a boring and pointless final product.
Avoid this film, it is a waste of your time

Something just doesn't quite feel right about 'Space Cowboys'.
It's good, but it always feels like it's stuck in second gear to me. I was anticipating more based on the cast, but even they are a little underwhelming. it's relative to what I was expecting, as Eastwood is still solid, Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland too, and the plot is satisfactory; even if I would've shaved off 15-25 minutes. An interesting piece of casting, btw, is the film debut of one Jon Hamm.
Borderline forgettable, but nothing bad. It narrowly gets a 3* rating from yours truly.

I'm not gonna stand here and tell you that _Ali G Indahouse_ is a good movie, but I've gotta be honest, I watch this movie at least once a year. I really am not a fan of basically every single thing that Sacha Baron Cohen has done since this, but sometimes, when I'm having a bad day, I sit down, chuck on _Ali G_ and comfortably feel like an idiot for a little while. Very luxurious.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

gph.is/28LnKBz
Amazed that they managed to take this sort of subject matter and make it boring.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._