Movies-TV

i loved it

this was a verry funny movie me and my mom laughed through out the hole moovie for a great funny family moovie i loved this movie and both of the ice ages

Home on the Range

This is NOT for kids. This NOT a kid movie. Funny, but why make a utter (pun) joke into this movie.

GARBAGE

This movie is an OFFENSE to the wonderful Disney movies that were made up until Mulan. Everything after the wonderful Mulan, has been nothing but garbage. Treasure Planet was awful. Brother Bear was even WORST! And now comes this. Who is in charge at Disney? Who has been coming up with these awful new ideas for an animated feature? There are so many other fairy tales Disney can breathe new life into. Yet they come up with garbage like Lilo & Stitch? and Home on the Range? I just dont understand! Now because these movies bombed, Disney has decided that Home on the Range will be the last 2D animated feature. I read they plan on making Rapunzel, computer generated! Can you imagine how wonderful Rapunzel can be? But Disney will ruin that, by making it all CGI. It just makes me very angry. My advice to all of you, is to not make this purchase. Roseanne Barr's voice is horrible as it is. To hear her lend it to an animated cow in Home on the Range, is enough to make you want to purge.

Boring

Disney really missed it with this one. Good idea, poor quality. voices of characters were not funny and the artwork was poor. Disney had to lose money on this. Grandchildren weren't excited afterwards. Colors in the scenes seemed to blend in and the humor was weak. Especially the adult humor. Didn't fit in and was not necessary. And the adult humor wasn't even funny. I would not recommend this film to anyone. The only voice I felt was worth listening to was the horse that Cuba Gooding's character conned into running away. Save your money. If my grandson had been older we would have went to see Hellboy. Brother Bear is good Disney, this is not.

The cow says boo!

"Home on the Range" is lacking almost in everything that made other Disney animated movies so charming, memorable and unique. Overall the movie also feels like it was made in a rush. The story is incredibly simple and uninteresting and has some totally uninteresting and lacking characters in it who don't exactly help to make the movie more vivid or interesting. Also the animations themselves look rushed and uses some totally pointless computer animations at times and the humor is predictable and mostly childish.Truly the biggest problem I had with this movie were the characters. They all were so totally underdeveloped in their personality and their relations. There also are way too many characters in this movie. The movie is only 76 minutes long but yet it finds time to introduce countless character, even halve way through the movie when the movie is already heading toward its ending. Also the main 'villain' is introduced too late into the movie and also isn't much good of a character either. He us a totally uninteresting and forgettable villain that likes to yodel. There are some good characters in the movie (The Willie Brothers, Rico, Buck) but all those character are heavily underused in the movie. The movie had way more potential, if they had only spend more time on the story. It certainly is a waste of a good voice cast.The humor is most of the time very childish and oh so predictable. Granted that there are some typical funny typical Disney moments which made me laugh out loud but unfortunately those moments were too few. Certainly not enough to save the movie anyway."Home on the Range" is nothing more than a childish and very forgettable movie, that lacks a good story and characters and only has a few laughs in it.4/10

Good for kids, boring for adults

My daughter watches the Disney channel, so "Home on the Range" was advertised heavily as we watched TV. By the time we saw the movie, much to my chagrin, I realized we had seen the best parts via TV. Some of the music was enjoyable and is probably Oscarworthy, but it is not enough to carry the movie. My daughter enjoyed it, she said, but I honestly had trouble staying awake. The weak writing made the animation look uninspired. Some of the animation lately, of award caliber, has combined good writing with phenomenal animation. "Home on the Range" has neither. If you want to take you child, he will probably enjoy it, but be prepared to have a drink laced with caffeine, if you want to stay awake.

Disappointed

I'm a Disney movie fan, and this movie really disappointed me, not good songs and simply a bad history. I don't know how the Disney Studios dare to invest time and money in such movies ... they can not say that they are surprised, a sure failure before making it; any one could have seen it.

It is a pity that they consider this bad movie as the last animated one, I hope that they reconsider the issue, and make movies again with the quality of the Walt's classics as: "Snow White", "Pinocchio", "The Sleeping Beauty" ... and even the new ones as: "The Beauty and the Beast", or "The Lion King" ... Those movies left good songs and story memories in the mind of at least 4 generations. Who does not know the "HI HO" of the 7 dwarfs or "WHEN YOU WISH UPON A STAR" ... Who did not cried when the mother of Bambi dies? or Who did not dreamed to fly with Peter Pan to Neverland? These things gave Disney the so-called "DISNEY MAGIC" and you don't find it in this kind of movies.

IMDb says the budget was over 100 million...

where did it all go because it certainly wasn't spent on the animation. It was just your regular Saturday morning cartoon animation. I guess most of the money must have been spent on the stars who played the voices. Since Rosanne's been out of work lately, she probably asked for a pretty penny to do this.It didn't have any fun songs that stand out in my mind. Plus, the plot was very generic. And it needed more animals. The main animals were cows, a rabbit, and a horse. There's also a goat, pigs, buffalo, and chickens, but they weren't shown a lot. One of the reasons people liked the story of Finding Nemo so much was all the different animals used to tell the story.FINAL VERDICT: I guess 5 year olds will like it, but I didn't think it was too great.

The Kids Loved It

So, it wasn't too bad. The kids, 4, 7 and 11, loved it. It was a bit jumpy and confusing, but we got some laughs out of it and the kids left smiling. That's pretty much the goal of going to a Disney film anyhow, even though it reminded me more of Warner Bros. and Looney Toons. And its not so terrible for Disney to try something different. It just takes some getting used to. Frankly, I just forgot that it was Disney and watched the show.But nobody has mentioned the violence. Just like Looney Toons cartoons that we grew up on, this movie was so full of violent acts that I lost count early on. It disturbs me to see cartoon characters suffer such debilitating injuries and the next thing you see they have completely recovered and carry on. What kind of message does this send the kids? "Go ahead and jump off that cliff, you'll walk away"....."Isn't it funny how that man's teeth are falling out of his mouth....."But if you don't mind Looney Toon violence, the rest of the movie is OK. Hokey, but it's supposed to be. We, the adults, did wish there had been a bit more character development, especially around Pearl, the owner of Little Patch of Heaven, and Buck, the ridiculously macho horse. Loved the voice of the Buffalo and agree that the horse that Buck encouraged to run away was also a great voice. Liked the music too, although it was a bit overwhelming at times.So enjoy, and remember: its for the kids, not you.

excuse the overworked pun but it applies -- "udderly disappointing"

This is the end? The Walt Disney Company has already announced that it will no longer make movies in the so-called `2-D animation style' because the process (sketching, refining, and painting each individual frame of a movie, one at a time; approximately 130,000 cels just for a finished 90 minute movie, never mind all the rough drafts that come before) has become too cost-prohibitive. Disney will continue to make movies along the lines of Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Dinosaur and Finding Nemo, films that have a more `3-dimensional' look and feel to them, and are more cost-efficient given new computer technologies. But still, this is the end, and this is what marks the end? After Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Fantasia, Peter Pan, Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast (the only animated movie in history to earn a Best Picture Oscar nod) the final entry in that long and storied cartoon canon is - Home on the Range? How `udderly' disappointing. It's not that Home on the Range is an awful movie. It does have its moments of fun and chuckles, but I suppose if I knew Disney would eventually arrive at this point, I would have preferred they went out on something more celebrated. Bow out on The Lion King, say, or perhaps Pocahantas. After so many years of breaking ground in the field of film animation, to exit on this banal and completely uninspiring piece of mediocrity is almost a slap in the face to those great animators who came before and all of us who grew up on the Uncle Walt's wizardry.Home on the Range is set in the American West of the 1800s, and tells the story of a widow dairy farm owner who is faced with being evicted unless she can meet a mortgage payment. Three of her cows, the bawdy and boisterous Maggie (voiced by Roseanne), the prim and proper Mrs. Calloway (voiced by Dame Judi Dench) and the holistic preaching Grace (voiced by Jennifer Tilly) concoct a scheme to catch a notorious cattle rustler named Alameda Slim (voiced by Randy Quaid). The reward for his capture is exactly the amount of the mortgage on the farm.Maggie and Mrs. Calloway are, of course, at odds right from the start, with Grace caught in the middle. Adding to their troubles is a hotshot young bronco named Buck (voiced by Cuba Gooding, Jr.), who has been commandeered from the local sheriff by a famous bounty hunter, who also sets out to capture Slim. Predictably, cows and horse eventually team up in their quest to bring in the bad guy.Some of the western landscape visuals early on are picturesque, but they are quickly abandoned to focus more on the movie's slapstick humor (thin though it may be.) The script by Will Finn and John Sanford does afford some well-deserved laughs. Roseanne is actually funny again and Judi Dench gets to showcase the dry comic stylings that viewers of BBC sitcoms know her for. Unfortunately, the jokes never reach the height of hilarity and some of the best lines are throw-aways delivered almost impromptu by a secondary character.But the most disturbing and disappointing thing about Home on the Range is the apparent appropriation of some characters from an entirely different animation studio. There are characters here, Alameda Slim's moronic henchmen immediately come to mind, although there are others, who are almost direct knock-offs (both look and voice) from the Looney Tunes department of Warner Brothers, characters who were put upon by the likes of Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck. For Disney animators to either directly or indirectly steal so blatantly from a rival reeks of cinematic plagiarism, and further demeans what should have been an historic and graceful exit.Don't feel any need to subsidize this movie's rumored $110 million dollar budget by dropping 9 dollars at the movie theater. Home on the Range is best saved for viewing on home video. (**)

Hilarious

Honestly, I have no idea why this movie is getting so many bad reviews. I loved this movie. Sure it's unrealistic, what kids movie isn't? Oh, and they couldn't have found anyone better than Roseanne to do the voice for Maggie, she fit the part perfectly! Don't listen to the reviews, give the movie a chance, you'll be glad you did.

Well, if it isn't the Phony Express.

Home on the Range was an embarrassing mess for Disney. They need to do something fresh and new to bring them out of this depression. This film was sheer garbage. Imagine, if you were a family of seven going to see this film, dishing out quite a large chunk of change only to enjoy no laughs, a pre-structured overused Disney plot, and just a hair under 70 minutes. Where is the value in this? Imagine spending nearly $25.00 for this type of rubbish. Well, there are those that are and it will forever perplex me. This film was a disaster from the beginning, and it never seemed to stop. There was only one point in this film that I enjoyed watching and it was the scene where the train jumps the tracks and heads into "Patch of Heaven". This was hysterical because I thought Disney was making a reference (perhaps some symbolism) of this film and the direction it was headed. Maybe they weren't, but that was the way that I understood it.

I can successfully say that after watching this film, Disney is one of the most uncreative, predictable, unimaginable studios out there. Their ability to think outside of the box has disappeared and will be forever lost on a new generation of children. They have lost their grasp on their "bread and butter" formula, and need to stop drawing films by hand. I think this was a perfect example of why. Home on the Range was stale. It was stale from the moment you opened the packaging to the moment the final credits rolled. The formula, characters, and even the songs were extremely stale. What has happened to their creative team? What has happened to the magic? None of it was used to make the film Home on the Range.

First, where were the big name actors lending their voices to make this film spectacular? If you are not going to use the modern computer animation, than at least make the voices somewhat spectacular. This was not the case here, instead we are forced to endure 70 minutes of C-grade actors forcing themselves through the words. Jennifer Tilly did not seem to match her character at all, while Roseanne was horribly cast as the independent bovine. It almost felt as if this film was made for the actors instead of for the mass audiences. The only redeeming voice was Steve Buscemi, and it seemed like they wrote the part for him directly. Apparently he is their A-grade star. Pathetic, while I love Buscemi's work, he deserved better and the rest of this cast only made him sound cheap.

Second, where was the meat to this story? Sorry about the pun, but there was nothing of value in this film. Even the patented Disney songs didn't seem to have the luster they once did. Everything from the background effects to the secondary characters seemed to be just, for lack of a better word, "half-assed". I felt that there was no heart in this story. Disney, trying to counter those audiences that were dishing out money to see Shrek and other better-animated films, just jumbled anything they could in a quick moment. There was no force or brilliance to this story. Even the jokes, which I was hoping would at least keep some of my attention, were short lived and dull. Nothing was funny. Leading me to watch the story, which went by in a whirlwind and left only devastation behind. It took Maggie all of three seconds to fit into the farm, there was no animosity or hesitation to these other animals meeting and accepting her. It took us all of five seconds to get to the Disney song, and finally, it took only ten seconds to get to the Disney break-up (where the characters leave on their own only to discover that they need each other). This was no time for us to feel anything for these characters. I knew nothing about any of them, so whenever they did anything (sorry to be vague) I didn't understand why. I needed more, and this gave me nothing.

Finally, I would like to end with this comment. I am not against hand drawn animation, when it is done creatively and with passion behind the story and characters. This was not the case with this film. Disney is going to continue to plummet unless they try to find a new way to bring these films out. They need a fresh edge, something for our new generation to enjoy. This cookie-cutter style is not going to work, and it is obvious with this film that it is a dying formula. I guess I am trying to plead with Disney, I am a child of your films. I have seen nearly all of them, and still watch some of them today, but with these new releases it is becoming obvious that you have moved from children to greed. The originality and honesty is gone. You have gone to mass marketing to whoever is willing to pay, and that is what is causing you to fail, both in film and in the box office. Revamp and return, and I will give you a second chance. If I see anything like Home on the Range again, I may just have to give up on you forever. The magic is gone.

Grade: * out of *****

Hillarious.

It looks like the writers were following the footsteps of Chuck Jones, just like THE EMPEROR'S NEW GROOVE. They did a good job. This film yodels, "Not you parent's Disney." The cows were cool. Cuba Gooding Jr is great for the role of the horse, Buck. I laughed so hard at the part where the bison was falling and you hear the Goofy scream (i.e. YAAH-HOO-HOY-YEEEE!!!) Hillarious. I was thinking, "Oh Yeah!" Every Disney film has the following, a hero, a heroine, a villain, and a funny character. Fun for the whole family. If you enjoy, TEACHER'S PET THE MOVIE, then you'll love this one. But sadly this is the last Disney film ever to use 2-D cartoon animation. Now they are moving to 3-D animation with CHICKEN LITTLE, which is due out in Summer 2005. This I got to see.

I'm with Ala-la-la-la-lameda :)

Hey, looks like I'm the only one who's going to DEFEND Alameda Slim and his adorable nephews! He became my favorite character straight away as I watched HOTR and heard the yodel (it's the 2hd thing I adore after Sesame Street). Plus, if you think, he's actually even not a villain. Whoever would go berserk after being crossed and misunderstood by people merely for their singing talent. Tell Al that he sounds excellent, hug him, and you'll see a different Slim. He's a handsome, over-sized and really brilliant yodeler. His name in Russian version was changed to Alameda Schip ("pinch", and voiced by Sergey Lysov), and the Willies became Strashki Bros (all voiced by Gennady Smirnov). Oh, yeah, and speaking of the Willies... I'd never seen such an adorable guy like Gil - funny, skinny, trusting, ...having something of his OWN - at least a comfy place on the sofa. Gil always makes me sadly smile when says, "He's just kidding, Unca' Slim, everyone likes yodeling!". Favorite AS&WB Moments: 1)Stick Out Undies (does Slim root "Chicago Bulls"?!) 2)"This is my comfy place" 3)Thummmp! (Slim "pulls himself together") 4)Certainly, Yodel-Adel-Eedel-Idel-O-o-o-o!...

Lazy and lacklustre film

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.

It All Ends With Cows

"Home on the Range" is the last Disney traditionally animated film due to the increasing demand for computer animation. This film has a lot of heart, and the story hits close to home. Maggie(Roseanne Barr) is a prize winning show cow. When the other cows on her farm where stolen by Alameda Slim, her owner had to sell the farm and give Maggie away to Pearl at Patch of Heaven. The farm appears to be just what it's name suggests, but Pearl has fallen into trouble with the bank, and the farm will be auctioned off if she can't get the money she needs. When the cows hear about the bounty put on caddle rustler Alameda Slim, they set out on a wild west adventure to capture him and collect the reward money to save the farm. However, there are other people after Slim, so it becomes a hilarious race. The film is rated PG, but there really wasn't anything too bad. The reason for the PG rating is burping and slaptick violence. The violence is exactly like what you would see in a Looney Tunes cartoon. That big long lump even appears on peoples heads. I don't think parents will have a problem with the content of this film.

The style of animation is very good. The scenery is so pretty, and the animals are so cute. The voice work is amazing. Dame Judy Dench provides the voice to lead cow on Patch of Heaven, Mrs. Calloway. I wouldn't have pegged Dench to play a western cow, seeing as she is british, but it really does work well, giving her the feeling that she thinks she is better than everybody else. Jenifer Tilly is the voice of my favorite cow in the film, Grace. Grace is a little slow and very peaceful. She provides most of the comic releif during the film. Randy Quaid is the voice of the yodelling outlaw, Alameda Slim. He really is perfect at it, creating the second funnyist Disney villain, just next to Yzma from "The Emporor's New Groove."

"Home on the Range" is the type of Disney film that will please everybody. It has a great story, as well as good humor, and a lot of heart.

Cows Catching a Bad Guy? Weak Story and Silly Jokes, Wasted Talent of Roseanne Barr

`Home on the Range' is not as terrible as you might be led to believe after watching the disappointing results on the US box-office, but still it is painfully clear that Disney is no longer what it used to be when it was making glorious `The Beauty and the Beast' and charming `Little Mermaid.' The company's deep-seated problems about animation making have been discussed elsewhere - like its ill-advised decision of making so-called cheapquels - so, let's not talk about it right now, but `Home on the Range' shows how this prestigious studio lost its creative power in such a short time.


[WEAK STORY] No one can deny this. In fact, the story of `Home on the Range' has certain potential, but the film misses every opportunity to make good use of it. The film actually starts promisingly. Three cows travel to catch a notorious thief for reward, in order to save the ranch where they live from bankruptcy. There are adventures, friendship, and several funny supporting characters, all voiced by capable cast including Roseanne (as Roseanne Barr who is just brilliant).


[WHY? COWS?] Still seen as a whole, `Home on the Range' doesn't add up to much partly because the film has no pivotal theme. It shows the love/ hate relations between a trio of the traveling cows just a little; it shows musical numbers a little; a wacky jokes a little (hypnotized cows by yodeling); a funnyman a little (very funny Steve Buscemi); a funny horse a little (equally good Cuba Gooding Jr.); and finally, `Indiana-Jones'-like actions a little. The film is very short (less than 80 minutes), but tried to do so many things.

But probably more fundamental thing is this. Why cows? I thought the same thing while recently watching `Chicken Little,' but some animals cannot just look interesting or charming when translated into the world of animated films. Unlike dogs, cows look the same, and I couldn't see much difference between the three bovine heroines. I don't say cows are dull creatures, but still are not the best choice to make a film about. And though Roseanne Barr and Jennifer Tilly are convincing as ... well, cows (and Barr and Tilly fit in the roles nicely) the idea of Judi Dench as English aristocratic cow never looks good to me, and the voice of Dench sounds very uncomfortable, a bit too theatrical for this media.

Perhaps I should not accuse the directors of making the film's uninspired storytelling (for adults, I mean). If what I hear from them on DVD is true (and there is no reason to doubt it), there must have been so many changes even from the pre-production stage. You often hear this: changed story, deleted scenes, reaction from the test audience, etc. Now it is a well-known fact that major studios attempt to `adjust' the film to the supposed taste of the supposed audience. Perhaps it is the real culprit of the disappointing works from these studios. I am not sure. But the film has beautiful hand-drawn images and good songs, and if the story fails to match them, that's the most likely explanation for that.

Forgettable

As a father of a three-year-old, I endure multiple viewings of the same film on a regular basis. Other than the homage to spaghetti westerns early in the movie, this is a forgettable film. Ultimately, I base my rating on my child's reaction to it. The movie barely held his attention, and after he watched it, he never wanted to see it again. What has happened to Disney? Their recent efforts pale in comparison to the films put out by their partner Pixar. This partnership is apparently dissolved after Cars. Disney might want to try harder to maintain its partnership with Pixar. Their "imagineers" are simply missing the boat.

What...happened?

I saw this movie with a lot of anticipation. After 'The Emperor's New Groove' revived some of my faith in Disney's animation studio, I ran out to catch some more Disney action with this movie...but was saddened. I don't want to use the word 'disappointed' because I don't think it really sums up what I feel. I was a child of the 90's and have no other memory of Disney except the grandeur, splendor, and absolute magic that was Disney animation a la 'The Little Mermaid', 'Aladdin', 'The Lion King', 'Pocahontas', 'Mulan' and 'Tarzan'. So, with each subsequent Disney movie, I hastily run to the theater with hopes that this next animated feature will resurrect Disney's authority in the world of animation. However, 'Home on the Range' didn't acheive that. It just saddens me to see Disney falling lower and lower on the scales of the animation world. This movie felt like it was written by people that weren't professionals; it was short, un-funny, and indeed felt like a really long Warner Brother's short, sans any humor. The only funny part was when all the cows were hypnotized, reminiscient of "Pink Elephants on Parade" from 'Dumbo'. I gave it 3 stars because it was "cute" and a bit creative, and was overall an ok movie. It just did not in any way live up to Disney's past victories. All in all, this movie just makes me more anxious for another superb Disney feature to come out. I really hope the execs at Disney take the lack of success of this movie, as well as the lack of success of the vapid 'Treasure Planet' and realize that Disney fans are yearning for Disney's good ole' magical animation. That's what Disney is: an animation studio. That's what they built their empire on, and that's what they should primarily do. All the fans still believe the studio can pull it off, they just need to get their butts in gear.

Borrowing from Others

Spoilers herein.You can build a very good movie from parts borrowed from others. There are even solid templates for doing this in a way that is half exploitation with the other half in contradictory spoof. The recent 'Van Helsing' impressed in this regard.The story even addressed this directly.But to do this successfully, you have to have the assembly have its own soul, not be just a review for the various parts. And though there are other faults here, the lack of coherence that typifies Pixar projects is what is missing and dooms the project.And though I cringe at the required Disney core: the mawkish reliance on 'family' and belonging, even that was done clumsily here. There were two shots (only two) whose intelligent borrowing I appreciated. The first was when the widow is reviewing old photos in glass frames before she loses her farm. The reflected raindrops (rain, window, picture frame glass, 'camera lens) was a worthy homage to the famous Conrad Hall effect in 'In Cold Blood.' The other shot was the pounding in of the 'to be auctioned' sign, where you saw first one line, then another. (I cannot recall the original and would appreciate being reminded.)The reference to the 'Lawrence of Arabia' train wreck failed. Now that could have been great. For some reason, the director decided that no shot in the entire thing would be close. That's what killed this one reference, and I wonder why they avoided the obvious 'coming into the audience' deal even here.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.