Adam Phillips excels at Flash animation

About a year ago, when Newgrounds first came out with the private messaging system, I wrote you a message titled, "I LOVE YOU MAN!" and you replied with the accustomed standard thank you reply, which was pretty nice on your part.
After I first watched Waterlollies for the first time on NG, I felt again compelled to write you another "I LOVE YOU MAN!" private message. However, you have changed the thing so that no longer anyone can send you private messages. This is very understandable, since you probably get many of those and don't need reminders of "YOU ARE <MY FAVORITE/ THE BEST/ GOD/ AAAWWWEEEESSSOOOOOOOOOOMEE>" every half hour, being obligated to acknowledge each one with a reply in the affirmative.
Nevertheless, let me speak for the many on the exceptional level of your talent. Most people have one or two things they are good at but very few do them to your extent as to get this much well-deserved praise.

As for the movie, it was very enjoyable. Your water effects get better with every movie. However, there are a few flaws that I don't think anyone has pointed out: the nest swarm particle effect's bottom rectangle bound is very noticeable during the first few seconds of the nest scene.
In fact, I think the particle effects was the weak link in your movie because while they were on the whole good, the pixels were square and pixely against the vector graphics and they seemingly lagged down the animation.

However, that is only a minor flaw and you transitioned between the particle effects and hand drawn swarms flawlessly.

On the content of the movie
Why are purple bigfoot's eyes always green while orange bigfoot's eyes change with emotion?
Why wasn't orange bigfoot with its kid?
How did the sage disappear so quickly? Can he turn invisible?
I also wonder if the witch will get pissed that she can't water her plants after Bitey ate the waterlollies the sage was gathering.

Anyways, I digress. It was a very excellent movie and it deserves the #1 spot.
I LOVE YOU MAN!

This actually deserves a fair score.

Most of Legendary Frog, or Joseph Blanchette's work receives such (due) criticism: excessive tweening, poorly drawn characters, kiddie humor, massively annoying voice acting, and most of all, bad jokes stolen from TV shows such as The Simpsons.

However, this isn't the usual "ill-styled" Legendary Frog movie. He has actually experimented with a new format that has never been tried before, mixing Madness-esque characters with a stick-arena type backdrop and giving it nonviolent plotline.
This change is commendable in several respects:
Firstly, the tweened movement, simplistic character design, and animation style fits with the brevity of the movie.
Secondly, there is none of that poor cartoony voice acting - the kind that gives emphasis on the unfunny punchline and then a slight pause, as if to say, "You're supposed to laugh now." The high-pitched, douche-chill arousing giggle - that "HEEHEEHEEHEEHEE" - given by characters voiced by Blanchette himself is thus not present; its absence is a bonus in itself.
Thirdly, there are no stolen jokes. While one can argue that the plot itself is to some degree formulaic, this movie does not reek of the sin of plagiarism.
Lastly, the characters are his own. In this Blanchette does not stoop to gain fans through various contemporary cultural phenomena, a fact that should be commended (he has gained enough this way).

If one of the many Frog haters votes for this movie, it may be righteous to restrain voting "0" simply because it is Blanchette's work. Instead one should perhaps give a fairer vote on account that it isn't very much like Blanchette's USUAL works.

This is getting exciting!

You know your castle just about as well as Adam Phillips knows his forest. Great atmosphere! The depth in background is very much above average. I praise your use of architectural details.
However, I cringe slightly at what in my humble opinion is the characters' poor planning in exploring the castle. What would be more foolhardy than sending just about everyone (or at least the bulk of the group) to rush into an unexplored, complex enemy structure with a non-combative scientist at the vanguard? This would lead to a whole bunch of bloodshed once the unseen enemy comes out. I nonetheless hope that's what happens, a massacre.
I'll definitely be watching the next chapter to find out.

Lack of gameplay consideration

It's disappointing that so much apparent effort was made to make this game look good, and how bad it turned out.
It actually seems that you took steps to make the game more frustrating. If you ever had the thought "Wouldn't it be cool if the camera shifts the view erratically as the player tries to move?" the answer is no. No because what you have done makes the game unplayable without getting motion sickness. You can either take out the camera spasms entirely, or you can try to make it more manageable like in Super Smash Bros, but you can't leave it as is now.

A good, yet somewhat disappointing sequel.

I'm currently stuck on a particularly irksome level, so I'm taking the time to review this game!
While graphics, enemy types, and overall style has improved, a bunch of additions and changes just make Thing Thing 4 worse fall short of the deservingly high expectations the previous Thing Things left me with.
I'm by no means saying that this is bad, because it isn't. It's a good game, and at many times, fun. However, I can't help but have a Comic Book Guy moment and list the things that bother me.
The Bad:
- Blood splatter clouds up the screen so much that when your life is hanging by a thread, when you need most to see clearly, the blood makes for this annoyingly impossible. I understand how it's appropriate and realistic, but it's still irritating to die because you can't see.
- No more earning weapons: Earning weapons was a big part of the old games' replay value, I thought...
- The weapon exchange system is too quirky. Sometimes I want an assault rifle and end up exchanging it for a pistol that's on the ground next to it. Then I die.
- THE WAITING - There is absolutely no justification for this. If the door isn't open in the first place, is there any reason it would open minutes later of its own accord? I don't think so. A stupid door that's not open yet is not a good reason why I should battle a hellish onslaught. Either let me unlock it, blow it up, or (may poo have mercy if I have to,) solve a puzzle to get past it.
Despite the flaws, there are improvements I really appreciate.
The good:
- Better controls
- More options
- Not having to cycle through a bunch of old, useless weapons that it makes no sense to carry
- A more polished feel
- A more realistic balance between 3's dead-on weapon accuracy and 2's uncontrollable weapon recoil
Overall, I like Thing Thing 4. I only wish you'd have considered the changes more. Nevertheless, this is a cool addition to an awesome series, and I hope you continue to make more!

I knew the boss would be Xenu from the start.

I like this game. The graphics were well conceived and the animation was good.
There are two problems that I wish could have been fixed, as the game would have been much better:
1. It is difficult to do moves that required key combinations like blocking, jumping, and special attacks.
2. It's to easy to beat the enemy just by repeatedy punching them.
Otherwise, I wasn't offended at all and would like to see more of this sort of fun religion parody game.

Love it!

I downloaded it and played it nonstop. Annoyed my stupid computer graphics teacher to death for half a year. She got so pissed.