Having only just moved to her new home, Maggie the cow is shocked to learn that it is to be shut down and auctioned off more than likely meaning the chop for all the animals. With cows Mrs Caloway and Grace in tow, she sets out to try and save the farm by claiming the reward for bringing in an infamous cattle rustler. Ignoring the sheer improbability of this, they set off only to find that several other parties (animals and humans) have similar ideas.
I came to this film as one of many animated films on during the Christmas period and given the genre perhaps had reasons for looking forward to the usual star cast, kiddie friendly laughs, subversive adult humour and solid plot with a moral at the base of it. Sadly though this genre is no longer one that can be judged based on your Shrek's, Toy Story's and so on but now needs to be approached with caution given how many weak copies there now are out there. It is a shame to have to point the finger at a Disney product for this crime but I couldn't shake the feeling that the planning for this film involved watching the good Pixar films and saying "let's make one of those but without the effort or cost".
And so the film was born and it appears the effort and cost has been removed, perhaps making a more profitable film due to lower overheads and a "look kids it's another animated film" marketing strategy that writes itself, but what it doesn't produce is a good film which is what Home on the Range stands as testimony to. The story is a very simple adventure that doesn't really have much to it beyond the basic description above and I was surprised by how plodding most of it was. The laughs are few and far between and the delivery generally seemed to lack energy. The animation is pretty basic looking and seems to have been made by a rather lacklustre committee, which is ironic when you think about what the significance the film holds within the legacy of Disney.
The voice cast has names but it feels more like actors being "the voice of" rather than playing characters. As a result they tend to just play on their voice rather than develop characters. Roseanne is Roseanne but with weak material (meaning she is just loud and not funny). Dench takes her money and I doubt very much if this film will ever be mentioned when discussing her body of work, and nor should it be. Tilly at least plays up her part and has quite a "fun" voice. Quaid, Gooding Jnr and Warburton are so-so even if small turns from Buscemi and Weaver are quite fun.
Overall then a pretty lacklustre product across the board that seems to be content to just take the success that simply being in a genre that we had gotten used to being good. It might amuse young children with its big bright shapes and loud noises but older children and certainly adults will find little to entertain.
I came to this film as one of many animated films on during the Christmas period and given the genre perhaps had reasons for looking forward to the usual star cast, kiddie friendly laughs, subversive adult humour and solid plot with a moral at the base of it. Sadly though this genre is no longer one that can be judged based on your Shrek's, Toy Story's and so on but now needs to be approached with caution given how many weak copies there now are out there. It is a shame to have to point the finger at a Disney product for this crime but I couldn't shake the feeling that the planning for this film involved watching the good Pixar films and saying "let's make one of those but without the effort or cost".
And so the film was born and it appears the effort and cost has been removed, perhaps making a more profitable film due to lower overheads and a "look kids it's another animated film" marketing strategy that writes itself, but what it doesn't produce is a good film which is what Home on the Range stands as testimony to. The story is a very simple adventure that doesn't really have much to it beyond the basic description above and I was surprised by how plodding most of it was. The laughs are few and far between and the delivery generally seemed to lack energy. The animation is pretty basic looking and seems to have been made by a rather lacklustre committee, which is ironic when you think about what the significance the film holds within the legacy of Disney.
The voice cast has names but it feels more like actors being "the voice of" rather than playing characters. As a result they tend to just play on their voice rather than develop characters. Roseanne is Roseanne but with weak material (meaning she is just loud and not funny). Dench takes her money and I doubt very much if this film will ever be mentioned when discussing her body of work, and nor should it be. Tilly at least plays up her part and has quite a "fun" voice. Quaid, Gooding Jnr and Warburton are so-so even if small turns from Buscemi and Weaver are quite fun.
Overall then a pretty lacklustre product across the board that seems to be content to just take the success that simply being in a genre that we had gotten used to being good. It might amuse young children with its big bright shapes and loud noises but older children and certainly adults will find little to entertain.