The Blob (1988) – 3/4

I thought it was pretty good. Very entertaining, though lacking in a couple special effects shots near the end of the film, which disappointed me because all the visual effects looked so good throughout the film.

SPOILERS

Some things bothered me. It isn’t much of a spoiler, but I’ll stick it in here anyway: The way that “The Blob” smothered and digested people didn’t seem consistent, and the boundaries of its nature wasn’t really there. I’m mainly speaking about how the old man isn’t completely eaten at the beginning, and how it hides inside the girl in the car, rather than just smothering them. I’m also referring to the speed at which it moves. There are some scenes where it’s pretty much like the original, only a little more active in movement; but there are other scenes where it can slide around super fast. Now this is all up to the fact that it’s a horror film from the '80s, but I wish it was portrayed slightly more simply, even if it didn’t differentiate from the original because of that.

---

I thought the plot twist regarding it being a man made biological weapons experiment was interesting and well done.

It isn’t nearly as good as the original The Blob, but it’s an enjoyable horror flick all the same.

Eraserhead (1977) – 3/4

A very good film. I don’t really know how to give my full opinion on it. Its abstract, surreal, weird crap was intriguing, interesting, and entertaining. I really enjoyed the experience. But, it just didn’t go all the way for me. I don’t know how to explain it. Anyway, it’s not something I would expect to appeal to most people. If you have any interest in it and have not seen it, I definitely recommend checking it out.

Patriot Games (1992) – 3/4

It was fun and thrilling, and Harrison Ford was good as a replacement for Alec Baldwin as Jack Ryan.

Clear and Present Danger (1994) – 3/4

Again, fun and thrilling, Harrison Ford was good again, and I loved Willem Dafoe in it as well.

TV’s Frink said:

Dek Rollins said:

TV’s Frink said:

Dek Rollins said:

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) – 4/4

It’s really pretty great. Thrilling, mysterious, carried by likable and compelling characters played by great actors, and I’ll just say that the twist at the end is wonderfully crafted.

(I’ve decided to adopt Ebert’s 4 star scale, because I’ve always taken a liking to it, and I started to realize how dumb it is to use letter grades.)

Yeah, letters are so much dumber than stars.

The letter grading system is based on a percentage system that doesn’t make sense when used outside of school grade context.

That makes even less sense. A four star system is just a percentage system with less detail.

This is true, in a way. Yes, the 4-star scale is just a strict set of percentages, the same way a 10-star scale is, only with less variation. But you’re looking at it the wrong way in comparison to the letter grade system.

The letter grades, when used outside a school grading context, are convoluted.

In the 4-star, 1/4=25%, 2/4=50%, 3/4=75%, and 4/4=100%. This is proper, even scaling.

In the letter grades, A=90–100%, B=80–89%, C=70–79%, D=60–69%, and F=0–59%. This makes C the midpoint, or average; but that means that average is 70–79%, and that’s just stupid. 50–59% is the midsection where average is. It’s middle ground; nothing special, but not bad. 70–79% is good, not average.

Tyrphanax said:

A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1, F = 0

My god it’s the same system.

I thought about that too, actually, but it doesn’t really work that way when looking at what the letters mean (see above).

TV’s Frink said:

Dek Rollins said:

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) – 4/4

It’s really pretty great. Thrilling, mysterious, carried by likable and compelling characters played by great actors, and I’ll just say that the twist at the end is wonderfully crafted.

(I’ve decided to adopt Ebert’s 4 star scale, because I’ve always taken a liking to it, and I started to realize how dumb it is to use letter grades.)

Yeah, letters are so much dumber than stars.

The letter grading system is based on a percentage system that doesn’t make sense when used outside of school grade context. I decided to start using Ebert’s scale because it’s a simple numerical scale that gets the point across while all the more specific feelings on the film can be summed up in a short review.

^^I was actually thinking about watching that soon, since I’d only heard of it recently. I assume from the brief words about it that it is recommended, correct?

The Blob (1958) – 4/4

I’ve loved this film since I was a kid. It holds such a weird and goofy premise, but it takes itself completely seriously, with wondrous effect. It draws me in and brings me to believe that such a ridiculous thing is really happening, and I feel for the characters, who carry the film grandly.

The only thing I don’t like about the film is the music over the opening credit sequence. I actually like the song itself, but it takes away from the tone of the film, and makes it feel like I’m about to watch a piece of schlock that’s supposed to be a cheese-fest. The originally scored piece is much more fitting, but sadly they replaced it. Reinserting the original opening music is being added to an ever-growing mental list of eventual fanedits I want to get around to making.

I have. I think I’d have to say I like the re-adaptation more. The 1956 film is still good though.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) – 4/4

It’s really pretty great. Thrilling, mysterious, carried by likable and compelling characters played by great actors, and I’ll just say that the twist at the end is wonderfully crafted.

(I’ve decided to adopt Ebert’s 4 star scale, because I’ve always taken a liking to it, and I started to realize how dumb it is to use letter grades.)

The Bourne Identity (1988) – B

I found out about the existence of this adaptation a month or so ago, and I finally was able to watch it today after being so curious about it. It was good, I suppose a little better than I was expecting, but just short of what I was hoping for.

It’s a two-part television film starring Richard Chamberlain and Jaclyn Smith that runs 185 minutes (3 hours 5 minutes) in total. The great thing is, it’s length helped it more than it hindered. It never really dragged (though I will get to an exception to that in a bit), and was an interest gathering ride the whole time.

About the things that I didn’t like. It really suffered from being a television production at some times. There the occasional spot of not-so-good acting, and points where the lack of a full budget shown. This film was good enough for me to wish it had been a higher budget theatrical release. I’m definitely going to bother editing it into one continuous film.

And now the thing that slowed it down a little and just kind of bothered me. There is a love scene in the film, and it just lasts too long for its own good. It doesn’t even really last that long, it just feels that way while watching. The main issue with the scene itself is that it is rather emotionless for being a love scene between the two protagonists. It’s just kind of static, with nicely fitting music at least (the only thing that helps a little), and the actors just don’t look as interested in each other as they should. I think I’m also going to trim that scene down to be less bothersome when I edit it.

The Bourne Identity (2002) – B-

Watched this one afterwards because I haven’t seen it since forever ago. All I really feel like I can say is that I acknowledge that this film is technically superior to the 1988 film, but I don’t like it as much. I definitely still like it though. I’ve never liked the shaky-cam action, or just needlessly handheld shots in general. This Bourne film and its sequels popularized the shaky-cam fast paced action that we know and love/hate today, and they are probably some of the only films to have done it tastefully, but I still don’t like it. It’s not the only problem I have with the film, but I’m too tired to elaborate further on my problems with it.

Both films are good, and for anyone who hasn’t seen or even heard of the 1988 adaptation, I definitely recommend it. And for clarification, I haven’t read the novel, so the 1988 version being apparently closer to the original story and such isn’t really a huge part of why I prefer it, though it is something I considered while thinking about it.

EDIT: I forgot to mention in my review for the '88 film, that I was surprised they got away with so much blood squib action. I mean, it was a TV special that aired on ABC; it was pretty violent sometimes. I loved it.

slashed my chainsaw through my

Does anyone else think theater should still be spelled like theatre? I don’t like changes like that. Kind of like how American English changed aluminium to aluminum, and needlessly removed a “u” from several words like favour and labour and colour, or how “ue” is being removed from words like analogue and catalogue. I prefer the old/British spellings.

the blood of my old

Here’s some security footage of me reconsidering:

TV’s Frink said:

An 89.9% is a B+.

A 90% is an A-.

So your grade is an 89.9999%?

Again, some charts and graphs would really help.

They wouldn’t help, though. My grade really was just a B+, but I felt like sticking an extra + on the end to help convey how high on the B it was. It was a purely nontechnical gesture.

I won’t use the double + anymore; after reconsidering, it doesn’t make that much sense to do.

Think of it like grades in school. The film was an 89.9%, which is technically a B, or more specifically, a B+. I said B++ to try and convey how close to the A spectrum it was in my mind.

(I don’t have time to make the graph right now 😉.)

I didn’t think it was worthy of the A. That’s why I put B++ instead of A-. B+ is just fine for it.

^… Fine.

The Secret of Nimh (1982) – B+

There.

I’ve decided to join. 😄

TV’s Frink said:

Given your disdain for Toy Story 2, I think any reasonable person would assume you were serious in your rankings there.

I don’t have any disdain for Toy Story 2. I just don’t like it. All the crap I got for saying that it isn’t that great is what got me saying so much crap about it, but in all honesty…

Dek Rollins said:

I wouldn’t even say I hate it. I just find it kind of annoying. It’s merely a mediocre sequel to a film I love, that I really don’t care about. And if anything, it’s the praise for perfection in gets that I hate.

I don’t even actually like Bass Master Classic very much. It’s not that fun. The first two things that popped into my head after reading the thread title and first post were BMC and Geddy bassin’ it on the double neck.

TV’s Frink said:

Dek Rollins said:

1.

2.

How dare you rate a video game over Geddy.

That was the joke.

1.

2.

SilverWook said:

Strange, I laughed at those jokes in Zootopia.

Different taste is different taste.

The bunnies line is just a reflection of Judy’s issue with being thought of as just a defensless little bunny. You’re reading far too much into it.

If she said: “Don’t call me cute…” that would have made sense. The specific way she said it made it seem less like she was actually bothered by it and more like she was correcting him for doing something that wasn’t culturally accepted. It just didn’t make sense to me.

I’ve tried to warm up to Secret Of NIMH over the years, but Bluth took too many liberties with the source material, which I read and loved back in the 5th grade. None of that mystical mumbo jumbo is in the book, and the rats do not dress like they’re at a Ren Fest. The rat’s whole backstory would have made a film in itself, and got way more time in the book as well.

Yeah, I can understand that. I’ve never read the book, but I did think that the mystical elements and the weird medieval theme that the rats were doing was kind of weird. It never really bothered me, though, which is probably why I didn’t mention it in my previous post.