QUASI-5 Reviews

Losing Our Religion (2017)

An important documentary

[9/10 · 10 May 2021]

This is a very honest and insightful look at some of the many men and women in the clergy that, for various reasons, completely lost their faith and belief in God, and the effects that coming out as atheists has had on their lives. The film does not concern itself with bashing Christianity (except for some of the former clergy explaining some of the very unchristian behavior directed at them by those Christians who formerly associated with them) but rather attempts to give the viewer an inside look at what it is like to step away from something that was once the central core of their lives and live a secular life instead. The film is at times heartbreaking, but ultimately hopeful, showing that obtaining happiness and a sense of real purpose can be achieved without the need for supernatural trappings. A truly fair, balanced look at a very sensitive subject!

Hubie Halloween (2020)

A happy surprise!

[9/10 · 12 October 2020]

While I am not an Adam Sandler super-fan, I have seen most of his films and my reactions have ranged from slightly annoyed to reasonably entertained. I went into Hubie Halloween blind, except for knowing it was a comedy. What a pleasant surprise it was for me!

This was a well-done, full-of-fun film filled with wonderful comic performances. Sandler's Hubie is a strange but ultimately lovable creation, and all the other characters were very likable.

There is a very big twist at the end, which I really didn't see coming, and I very much loved this film, and while it certainly won't be everyone's cup of Halloween tea, for me it does for Halloween what "A Christmas Story" does for Christmas. Both are very entertaining, filled with great comic moments and neither one taking itself too seriously.

Hercules in New York (1970)

Fine family entertainment for a rainy weekend afternoon!

[6/10 · 4 October 2020]

I found this to be an affable and enjoyable film to watch, quite silly and good-natured overall. Both Arnolds (Schwarzenegger and Stang) are fun to watch, and the rest of the cast is okay if not particularly memorable. The original version of the film had another, un-credited actor providing the voice of Arnold's Hercules due to his thick accent, but the DVD version, as well as the version you can catch on TV these days, have restored Arnold's real voice to the soundtrack, which really helps. Overall, it's good fun and if you go into it not expecting too much, you'll emerge at the end having had a pleasant if not unforgettable experience.

Maneater (2007 TV Movie)

Not as bad...

[6/10 · 15 January 2008]

...as you may think. Essentially a re-make of JAWS, only the shark is now a tiger and the sea is now the Appalachian Mountains. How much like "Jaws?" Read on: the local sheriff gets involved when a Bengal tiger gets loose and begins killing the townsfolk, so he raises the alarm, much to the dismay of the town's smarmy mayor, who doesn't want the town's big money-making festival canceled. The local yokels get involved when a reward is announced for the killing of the tiger, and an outside "expert" tiger hunter shows up to track the beast as well. So many scenes are reminiscent of "Jaws" it's a wonder Spielberg hasn't sued. For example, a news photographer sets up a shark-proof cage...er...make that a TIGER-proof cage...in a field in order to capture some photos of the animal, and the results are pretty much the same as what befell the shark cage in "Jaws"...that is, it didn't offer any protection! The only significant difference between the two films is that this movie features a young boy who seems to have a strange sixth-sense about the animal, which features strongly in the plot.

In spite of the obvious similarities, I actually enjoyed "Maneater" quite a bit. Gary Busey is quite likable as the local sheriff, and Ian D. Clark is just terrific as the British tiger-hunter. Ty Wood is very effective as the young boy with the affinity for the tiger as well.

All-in-all, an entertaining way to spend 90 minutes of your time, though if you've seen Jaws, nothing here will surprise you.

Scooby-Doo (2002)

Surprisingly good

[14 June 2002]

I'm 42 years old, and grew up watching Scooby Doo. Though I wouldn't classify myself as a die-hard fan, I enjoyed Scooby for what it was; mindless entertainment. Only as I got older did I gain an appreciation for the humorous "druggie" subtext involving Shaggy, and the questionable sexuality of Velma, not to mention a few other things that may or may not have been pre-planned by Mssrs. Hanna and Barbera. Since this is a family-friendly film, none of these two issues is alluded to in the film, with the minor exception of a funny reference to a certain 'Mary Jane.' When I first got word of a live-action version being planned, I was skeptical. Oh, I knew Scooby could be pulled off with CGI, but my concern was primarily about the casting of the film. Which actors could possibly breath life into these formerly two-dimensional characters and make them real? The choices were somewhat risky, but then again so was the entire premise of a live action Scooby. I'm actually happy to report that the cast does a mostly good job, with two real stand-outs. Freddie Prinze, Jr. is passable as Fred (though a little slight on the physical side compared to his more muscular animated counterpart) and Sarah Michelle Gellar is all right as Daphne, though not quite blonde enough to be true to the cartoon version. The true stand-outs are Linda Cardellini as Velma and Matthew Lillard as Shaggy.

The heart and soul of the entire Scooby franchise is, I believe, Shaggy and his relationship with Scooby, and I can honestly say that Lillard plays his part to perfection. There is not a single flaw to be found in his performance. It is, quite simply, brilliant. If the authenticity with which an actor breaths life into a character is any measure of what goes into an Academy Award winning performance, then in a completely fair world, Lillard would be nominated for one next year. He's just that good. He manages to make a CGI rendered Scooby seem that much more alive, and the love he feels for his canine friend is palpable. In the same light, Linda Cardellini breaths life into the character of Velma. She makes you see the vulnerability beneath the brains, and manages to make Fred and Daphne look better than they actually are whenever she's in a scene with them. I am very impressed by these two performances. As for the story, it's the same one that can be seen in every episode of the cartoon show, with only the names of the characters changed to give the appearance of a new storyline. As for who the bad guy turns out to be in the end, it's a fitting choice for anyone who truly likes the Scooby Doo-niverse. I believe the secret to enjoying this incarnation of Scooby Doo is to ask yourself just one question: Have you ever watched more than one entire episode of the cartoon series? If so, then you are bound to enjoy Scooby Doo the movie. If not, then go see something else and let the rest of us have all the fun!

Twice Upon a Time (1983)

The "other" version...

[12 January 1999]

Altogether one of the finest (and funniest) animated films ever to come out of Hollywood, Twice Upon A Time is a lovingly crafted valentine to dreamers of all kinds! Extremely witty writing makes it as enjoyable for grown-ups as it is for children. Especially effective is Marshall Efron's performance as the evil villain of the picture, Synonamess Botch! My only negative comment about the video is that they have edited his dialogue in order to change and/or eliminate many of his funniest (and rudest) comments. While this was certainly necessary so that children could watch it, I wish they could have released (or will release) an un-edited version. Luckily I taped the original when it aired on cable many years ago, so I still have it to watch, and it never fails to induce serious amounts of laughter when I do. Still, I cannot recommend the edited version highly enough!

This film deserves so much more recognition than it has gotten!