Home on the Range (2004)

Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

The Bad:I decided to rank the Disney animated movies (for my own amusement) and when I first ranked this movie, it was at the very bottom of the pile. What makes this one so bad? Honestly, what doesn't! The voices are annoying. The music is grating. The story is predictable. The comedy falls flat. The villain is one-dimensional. It feels like the Disney company was giving up on hand-drawn animation, so wasn't spending the time and money to make this film good, but rather said "Hey, let's slap something together and see if we can make some cash on the cheap!". If this were one of the cheaply made sequels, it might be considered alright (never good), but we expect so much more from a Disney theatrical film. This is just bad, bad, bad. The Good:Ummm... Hmmmmm.... Honestly, I can't think of a single positive thing to say about this one. I guess it doesn't contain much objectionable for young kids? It's got a PG-rating, but probably ought to have a G-rating. That's d***ing with faint praise.The Mom View:Okay, I started this review by saying that this movie began at the bottom of my list. Then I realized that this wouldn't be horrible to let my young kids watch. Unlike, say, Chicken Little, this isn't filled with disgusting levels of animosity or parental apathy towards our main characters. My kids would probably be shallowly entertained by this movie. But it would feel like a TV babysitter, not quality film. This also isn't something I could handle as background noise due to the cringe-worthy songs and voice acting. I can find much better movies out there and wouldn't waste my time (or my kid's time) with this one. So it isn't something I actively hate so much as it's something that's "just" badly made.

Disney really has come up with very few magical and eye-catching animated films in the 2000s, and this one is no exception. Yet another film about talking animals, this story has three cows setting off on a mission to capture wanted outlaw Alameda Sam so they could use the $750.00 reward money to save their farm. What resulted is a rushed mess of distasteful comedy, uninspiring characters and a cliché plot with no surprises and suspense. It's just a story about a simple rescue mission in the wild west, but consumed by the constant bickering of the two cows, Maggie and Mrs. Calloway. Just my humble opinion, a story featuring three seasoned cows (with Roseanne Barr, Judi Dench and Jennifer Tilly as voice-overs) as the main protagonists on a mission does not just sound unappealing, but is a miscast. I find the California cheese commercials featuring the talking cows much more entertaining.The hand-drawn animation wasn't bad, though, and I thought the capture of the wilderness and the wild west was a little elaborate. But, other than that, this movie misfires on the dialog that makes it funny and the unique personalities that makes the characters memorable. They were just thrown in and delivered no redeeming qualities, and had poor attempts at humor and trying to sound "modern." Not recommended.Grade D--

This film came out when I was at the young age of 10, mum and I were regular cinema goers back when movie tickets and popcorn were cheap (relatively of course). I almost completely forgot this film's existence until today when my friend brought it up telling me how this film had basically proved that the Disney Renaissance of the 1990s was over by the time the 2000s rolled around. Being the avid Disney Channel watcher, I can recall being bombarded with advertising to go see this film, so mum and I went to see it. I remember my mum enjoying it somewhat, I even enjoyed it for the most part. The humour used in the script was somewhat crass but who doesn't love a good burp joke every now and then, even my mum laughed. Of course the silly puns and such are funny to those who are younger, but it seems this film was targeted at those 8 and under way too explicitly. Obviously it's a kids film, but what separates Disney films from most other kids films is that many of them can be enjoyed by people of all ages, where you discover something new each time you watch it and grow up more. The only thing I discovered about Home On The Range was expected: More underlying crass humour. Yes, there is a lot of adult humour, and yes there's plenty in other Disney films too, but this almost seems like it's trying to copy Dreamworks or something. Well films by Dreamworks were becoming popular at this time, so it's obvious why cheap, crass humour was used. Not to mention the songs are completely forgettable and the story is thin and cliché. Finally, to top it all off, the animation is not that great especially by Disney standards. I'm surprised this made it to the cinema, it seems like it should've gone straight to DVD. With a budget of 100 million, you would think they could have better quality animation staff. However most of this money was probably spent on the celebrity cast and advertising. The fact that Disney has stooped to such a low point surprises me.To sum up: If you're kids are still in Elementary School, they will probably enjoy the film. I highly doubt anyone over the age of 10 would enjoy this however.

The early 2000s weren't very kind to Disney's animated films. Although I liked many of the movies they released at the time, they didn't seem to resonate with audiences and gain that "instant" classic badge of honor that many of the studios works like "Aladdin" and "The Lion King" earned in the 1990s.In "Home on the Range," three cows from different walks of life embark on a journey to capture an outlaw and collect the reward. The reward is exactly the amount of money they need to save the farm they live on from a greedy land grabber intent on buying up all the property in that area. They partner up with different animals along the way and battle others to keep their home."Home on the Range" isn't a bad film. It's just not memorable. Nothing about it screams classic. There are no princesses, knights in shining armor, or magical dragons. It's just boring old talking animals and people. Where's the fun in that? Of course there's the message of: "Home is where the heart is." It just doesn't seem to have the same impact as seeing the good guy slay a dragon for his sweetheart to prove: "Love conquers all."One reason most animated Disney films gain popularity is because of their musical numbers. All the greats which come to mind had songs you left humming after seeing them. Think about all the movies like "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs," "Peter Pan," "Beauty and the Beast," and decades of others. "Home on the Range" really doesn't have a single memorable tune in it. The only reason I even remember the villain's song is because he yodeled funny in it. Academy Award winner Alan Menken dropped the ball on this one. I guess every song you compose can't be a hit, though.The audio and video quality for the film looks better than it ever has before thanks to its high definition transfer. The picture is clean for the most part and the 5.1 surround is utilized through the soundtrack, background noises, and sound effects like whistling trains, gunshots, and such. Viewers will be happy with the format upgrade to Blu-ray."Home on the Range" isn't a bad movie. It's just not up to par with a lot of the films Disney releases that so many people cherish.