What happens when you combine low-budget vector animation with amateur actors? Certainly nothing comparable to "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?". That's not to say that my problems with this movie are that it doesn't measure up to a very good movie like "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?", no, it would be quite unfair to knock it just because it's no where near as good. There are plenty of OTHER problems with this "movie" to fault it on. So, the "... Roger Rabbit" comparisons stop here... for now.
The first, and most obvious problem with this movie, is the casting. Obviously they had a small budget to work with. That's the only thing that can explain why they'd choose a cast full of actors that rate mediocre, at best. These actors are almost as "good" as actors you'd expect to see on a kids' sitcom on Nickelodeon and the Disney Channel. Even the voice actors are bad, and that's amazing. Amazing because Cartoon Network normally employs some of the best voice actors in the country to work on their animated shows. So yes, the acting is bad. Quite bad. Only pre-teens could watch the movie without noticing this fault, and even so, it's insulting to make entertainment for kids and expect them to be ignorant of all its faults. The casting was terrible.
Then there's the extremely racially ignorant casting choice of selecting Eunice Cho and Micah Karns to play the role of Japanese kids whose family surname is "Yoshida." News flash: Asian ethnicities are not interchangeable. These kids don't have an ounce of Japanese heritage, and should not be cast to play Japanese characters; they don't look Japanese, not a bit. The decision to cast them borders on racism by reinforcing the stereotype that "all Asians look the same." In fact, these kids are so far from looking Japanese that you'd have to be brain dead or downright ignorant to ever mistake either of them for one. On the other hand, their grandparents ARE played by Japanese actors, and speak Japanese in their scenes. That only worsens the perceived racial stereotype here, as it paints a clear picture of what race the family is supposed to be while the kids are clearly of vastly different heritage. You really would have to be ignorant to not see the difference between them. Or a child. Great, let's help reinforce the stereotype by subjecting children to actors of mixed Asian races and telling them that they're supposed to be related somehow.
As for the animation, the other half of the "acting" in this movie, to most it will appear fairly decent. To big fans of animation, it's noticeably low-budget. They used a vector graphics animating program, i.e. Flash, for all of the animation. So, it looks very "tweeny," quite flat, often like paper cut-outs. While it's decent animation, it's still stiff and flat animation, and the characters don't move as fluidly as cartoons you'd see in a Disney film.
The plot of the movie was built around the rumor that Walt Disney's brain was put into cryogenic storage, so "Milt Appleday" represents Walt Disney and the cartoons and theme park are meant to be parodies of Disney's work. However, these Flash animated cartoons are no where near as lively as traditional cartoons like those made by Disney (or at least Walt Disney's Disney). It stands out when the characters almost "float" around, look completely superficial, when they aren't shaded to fit into the scene, when they seem like they were just slapped into the frame with little attempt to really assimilate them into the scene. I know I said I wouldn't make any more comparisons to "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?", but just watch that film and see how much more believable the animated characters are in that movie. They really do fit into the scenes shot in the real world. That's why at least one comparison must be made, as "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" was one of the best films to put animated characters into the real world with real actors. The characters in "Reanimated" stick out like sore thumbs in the real world. Sore, tween-animated Flash thumbs. That style of animation is great when it's applied to a great stylized cartoon like "Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends." But, it's a bit disappointing in its application in "Reanimated," where they stand in as parodical representations of Walt Disney's cartoons.
Overall, the movie is just barely "watchable" for younger audiences, but anyone in the teens and up will have a hard time stomaching the acting. Given the large amount of advertising and hype they've put into this movie, you'd think they'd have given it a decent budget to hire decent actors and bump the animation up from cost-effective "tweeny" computer animation to something traditionally fully-animated. There's really no excuse for the bounty of low-budget choices in the production of "Reanimated," this is Cartoon Network, a pretty big powerhouse in cable entertainment. For them to pump out and hype up such a mediocre piece of work is almost insulting to their viewers.
The first, and most obvious problem with this movie, is the casting. Obviously they had a small budget to work with. That's the only thing that can explain why they'd choose a cast full of actors that rate mediocre, at best. These actors are almost as "good" as actors you'd expect to see on a kids' sitcom on Nickelodeon and the Disney Channel. Even the voice actors are bad, and that's amazing. Amazing because Cartoon Network normally employs some of the best voice actors in the country to work on their animated shows. So yes, the acting is bad. Quite bad. Only pre-teens could watch the movie without noticing this fault, and even so, it's insulting to make entertainment for kids and expect them to be ignorant of all its faults. The casting was terrible.
Then there's the extremely racially ignorant casting choice of selecting Eunice Cho and Micah Karns to play the role of Japanese kids whose family surname is "Yoshida." News flash: Asian ethnicities are not interchangeable. These kids don't have an ounce of Japanese heritage, and should not be cast to play Japanese characters; they don't look Japanese, not a bit. The decision to cast them borders on racism by reinforcing the stereotype that "all Asians look the same." In fact, these kids are so far from looking Japanese that you'd have to be brain dead or downright ignorant to ever mistake either of them for one. On the other hand, their grandparents ARE played by Japanese actors, and speak Japanese in their scenes. That only worsens the perceived racial stereotype here, as it paints a clear picture of what race the family is supposed to be while the kids are clearly of vastly different heritage. You really would have to be ignorant to not see the difference between them. Or a child. Great, let's help reinforce the stereotype by subjecting children to actors of mixed Asian races and telling them that they're supposed to be related somehow.
As for the animation, the other half of the "acting" in this movie, to most it will appear fairly decent. To big fans of animation, it's noticeably low-budget. They used a vector graphics animating program, i.e. Flash, for all of the animation. So, it looks very "tweeny," quite flat, often like paper cut-outs. While it's decent animation, it's still stiff and flat animation, and the characters don't move as fluidly as cartoons you'd see in a Disney film.
The plot of the movie was built around the rumor that Walt Disney's brain was put into cryogenic storage, so "Milt Appleday" represents Walt Disney and the cartoons and theme park are meant to be parodies of Disney's work. However, these Flash animated cartoons are no where near as lively as traditional cartoons like those made by Disney (or at least Walt Disney's Disney). It stands out when the characters almost "float" around, look completely superficial, when they aren't shaded to fit into the scene, when they seem like they were just slapped into the frame with little attempt to really assimilate them into the scene. I know I said I wouldn't make any more comparisons to "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?", but just watch that film and see how much more believable the animated characters are in that movie. They really do fit into the scenes shot in the real world. That's why at least one comparison must be made, as "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" was one of the best films to put animated characters into the real world with real actors. The characters in "Reanimated" stick out like sore thumbs in the real world. Sore, tween-animated Flash thumbs. That style of animation is great when it's applied to a great stylized cartoon like "Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends." But, it's a bit disappointing in its application in "Reanimated," where they stand in as parodical representations of Walt Disney's cartoons.
Overall, the movie is just barely "watchable" for younger audiences, but anyone in the teens and up will have a hard time stomaching the acting. Given the large amount of advertising and hype they've put into this movie, you'd think they'd have given it a decent budget to hire decent actors and bump the animation up from cost-effective "tweeny" computer animation to something traditionally fully-animated. There's really no excuse for the bounty of low-budget choices in the production of "Reanimated," this is Cartoon Network, a pretty big powerhouse in cable entertainment. For them to pump out and hype up such a mediocre piece of work is almost insulting to their viewers.