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

The Rescuers Down Under (1990)

In the first of Disney’s official animated sequels, the House of Mouse pulls off a rare success in delivering a film that improves upon its predecessor in every way.  It doesn’t reach the same heights as The Little Mermaid, but a gorgeous color palette, a brisk pace, and likeable characters makes The Rescuers Down Under a winner.  To write it off for not retaining the same steadfast popularity of other Disney Renaissance releases would do this film a great disservice.

When a ruthless poacher seeking a rare eagle kidnaps a young boy with knowledge of the bird’s whereabouts, the Rescue Aid Society is contacted.  Bernard and Miss Bianca, from the first Rescuers film, take the assignment and rush headlong into the Australian Outback to find and save the boy.  Along the way they meet a number of colorful characters, some of whom want to help them and others who stand in their way.

After a pair of musicals, Disney dishes out a strictly narrative story.  It may be a bit of a jolt, especially after the charm and power of The Little Mermaid, but we have to remember that Disney works on multiple films at a time.  Keeping musical numbers out of the film actually works to its benefits.  In a life-and-death rescue story, where exactly can characters find an acceptable place to break into song?

The Rescuers Down Under benefits from audience familiarity with Bernard and Bianca.  If you are watching this movie, then chances are that you’ve seen the original.  The main villain is pretty flat and borders on being the stereotypical evil hunter type.  In this tale, however, he is a poacher.  It makes a big difference but the narrative still veers a little too close to bunny-hugging “hurting animals is wrong” territory.  Even though there is no character development or proper motivation, the villain excels at seeming dangerous.  This vital characteristic is necessary to nudge the fact that we are watching a Disney film into the back of our minds, allowing us to maintain concern for the boy’s life for the whole film.

The supporting characters are likeable and provide plenty of extra substance.  A goofy and dim-witted albatross provides most of the comic relief, while a dashing Australian mouse provides some romantic tension for Bernard and Bianca.  None of these characters overshadow our true heroes, which helps the film stay true to its title.   Why call it The Rescuers if your main draw is a batch of new supporting characters?

The run-time is short, making Down Under feel dangerously close to being light on content.  Solid characters and gorgeous animation help to distract you from that fact.  But hey, it’s a Disney film for crying out loud.  Some of Disney’s greatest films were a few minutes shorter than this one.  It’s a shame that Down Under has been forgotten about over time.  It’s better than the original but it was released between two of Disney’s biggest hits of all time.  The opening sequence is remarkable and the whole picture is very enjoyable- a solid and, sadly, underrated Disney yarn.

Rescuers

RATING: 3.5 out of 5