Fantasia 2000 (1999)

Can this film really be considered a sequel? If so, it probably marks the longest time between a film and its sequel in film history. The original Fantasia was conceived by Walt Disney to showcase how animation really could achieve high-art status. With no need to doubt those lofty goals anymore, Fantasia 2000 feels more like a recycled idea that fails to build on its predecessor.

Of the eight shorts that comprise Fantasia 2000, only four of them are clearly memorable to me. One of these is “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice,” or the one short from the original Fantasia that people still recognize today. It’s the exact same short that appeared in 1940, so I have to completely disregard its presence in order to grade the film’s new contributions. It only makes sense to me to base my rating on the merits of what is new. “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” is a masterpiece of a short but its inclusion almost feels lazy to me. It’s as if Disney threw it in to give people a reason to see the film in the first place.

The animation to George Gershwin’s “Rhapsody in Blue” is the standout. It depicts a bustling Depression-era day in New York City and the animation is styled after Al Hirschfield’s cartoons of that time. This is the one short that lives up to what the original Fantasia set out to do- blend animation and music to artistically express life and emotion.

Donald Duck shows up toward the end of the film as Noah in “Pomp and Circumstance.” It’s amusing to watch him struggle with the ark and all the animals on board but it lacks the wow factor of “Rhapsody in Blue.” The only other notable short is “Pines of Rome.” It features a family of humpback whales who end up being able to fly. This piece was used heavily in marketing the film but all it really amounts to is “oh, and there were some flying whales.”

It is interesting that Disney went on to have much more success in the new millennium with computer animated tales (the most successful of which coming from Pixar). Could Fantasia 2000 be seen as traditional animation's last gasping attempt to assert its relevance? Yes, but I don’t think that’s entirely fair. Traditional animation is far from dead; it just fails to wow the eyes and minds of today’s audiences like CGI can.

Fantasia 2000 is every bit the risky experiment that Fantasia was in 1940. It is a bold proposition to ask audiences to sit through some arty shorts. This time around, there is no urgency in the mission. Fantasia 2000 functions more as nostalgia for the original and other Disney shorts of yesteryear. This film runs much shorter than its predecessor but it still feels as if time drags while you watch it. The animation is crisp but there is no big draw here. It may be far from pointless, but this feels like a film without much of a purpose. I recommend it only for the most hard-core Disney fans.

RATING: 3 out of 5

Pocahontas (1995)

After six years and five films, the Disney Renaissance finally hits a pothole. I’m sure Disney had the best of intentions with its first film adaptation of historical figures. It’s colorful and contains a pair of memorable songs, but the rest of it is underwhelming at best.

The greedy Governor John Ratcliffe sets sail with a team of British men to settle the New World and dig unheard of riches in the gold he believes they will find there. Upon reaching Jamestown Colony, Captain John Smith encounters the beautiful Pocahontas, daughter of the Powhatan tribe. Pocahontas is coming of age and trying to determine what she wants from life. A suitable warrior from her tribes makes his intentions known but she finds herself drawn to the English invaders, Smith especially. An uneasy coexistence between the tribe and the settlers quickly dissolves into violence, thrusting Pocahontas and Smith into dangerous situations.

I’ll start with the good, because it will be brief and anyone out there who is a die-hard fan of this film can stop reading after this paragraph. There are two moderately memorable songs in this film- “Just Around the Riverbend” (of which I can only remember the title words being sung) and “Colors of the Wind” (which I vaguely remember from my childhood, but barely). It’s also got a few cute animal characters that provide comic relief. There is also some sweet romance thrown in to boot.

Now for the problems. I noticed in Aladdin that Disney was simplifying portions of the animation, characters in particular. The animation in Pocahontas more often than not looks closer in quality to Disney’s television cartoon shows than recent big-screen offerings. Often times there is very little depth to what audiences are looking at. This results in less of an immersive experience and may have left some leaving the theaters feeling a bit cheater. Then again, it might have looked fine on the big screen. On my 27” CRT? Not so much.

The characters are also problematic. Pocahontas doesn’t seem to carry the film as much as John Smith does, rendering her the weakest Disney Renaissance female lead to date. The comic relief comes in the form of cute animals that chase each other around but lack personality. Finally, John Ratcliffe is one of the weakest villains Disney ever put on screen. His only claims to power are his nobility and stature attained in England. In the New World, these qualities are meaningless. He is a fat, greedy, pompous jerk with a superiority complex. He exhibits no actual power or threat to anyone. The more subtle villain here is colonialism.

This brings me to the elephant in the room: Pocahontas is jarringly inaccurate in its portrayal of most of the Pocahontas legend. Usually, the ‘Disney Treatment’ means lightening things up and adding an overabundance of heart-warming moments. Between the revisionist history that portrays the Native Americans as largely innocent victims to the colonialist machine, and the goofy pseudo-spiritual elements even Native Americans complained about, it’s a wonder this film was allowed to proceed.

Overall, Pocahontas is a film of extremes. A few rich songs collide with TV-quality animation. Aspects of the story are oversimplified, exaggerated, and completely made up seemingly at will. I hope my daughter never wants to watch this film because I shudder to think that she might believe it is in any way accurate. As entertainment, Pocahontas is probably Disney’s equivalent of a lowest-common-denominator popcorn flick. The story sucks if you know your history but the rest of it is candy-coated so well that the kids won’t really care.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5