Toy Story 2 (1999)

Up to this point, sequels were a rarity for Disney. The only true sequel on the books was The Rescuers Down Under, which underperformed, and who honestly counts Fantasia 2000 as a sequel? Ordering a Toy Story sequel from Pixar must have been a very carefully calculated risk. It paid off handsomely though, as Toy Story 2 brings back everything audiences loved about the original and added even more things to love. Its status as a sequel prevents it from feeling as fresh as its predecessor, but our second romp with Buzz and Woody has plenty of pop and sizzle.

While rescuing a fellow toy from the yard sale pile, Woody is snatched up by a toy collector. Buzz and the gang set out on a rescue mission that takes them across town. Meanwhile, Woody meets new faces in the collector’s apartment and learns that he is an extremely rare and valuable toy. As a complete set, the Woody’s Roundup team will be on display for toy collectors to appreciate for years to come. Without Woody, they will be put back into storage potentially forever. This leaves Woody to wrestle with the decision to stay loyal to Andy or join his new friends on their quest for immortality.

Unlike a lot of sequels, Toy Story 2 is very good. Some people believe that this film is better than the original. They are entitled to their opinion but I disagree. The animation certainly has improved, with more detail, higher quality, and the incorporation of camera pans, zooms, and tricks found in non-animated films. The story is fresh, but it’s a little too heavy at times. Half of it is (if your honest) a retread of the first film, only this time Buzz saves Woody. The other half deals with issues that are going to go way over children’s heads.

The filmmakers don’t get nailed for the recycled rescue story because Buzz brings along a number of the other toys. This gives the supporting characters and voice actors plenty of time to shine as they struggle to work together as a group. Buzz encountering another Buzz Lightyear action figure that is not yet aware that he is just a toy is amusing. Woody’s arc, however, is substantially less fun. The new characters of Jessie, Bullseye, and Stinky Pete provide an interesting perspective as collectibles but they deal with and discuss issues that are very adult. Immortality, rejection, duty- all of these are heavyweight philosophical concepts that kids can only scratch the surface of understanding.

It certainly looks better but Toy Story 2 is not the feel-good tale that the original was. At times it is a steady gut-puncher that makes older kids and sappy, nostalgic adults feel guilty about giving up on their beloved childhood toys. Or is it really an allegory for how we treat other people? If so, Toy Story 2 is perhaps the darkest kids’ flick of all time. Therein rests the kicker. When I watch a movie billed as family-friendly entertainment and targets hard towards children, I don’t want to watch something designed to make me feel bad. That’s what European cinema is for.

Pixar delivers a fun, albeit outlandish, adventure that straddles the line between kids’ and grown-up entertainment. The development of Toy Story 2 was rushed, which might explain why there is a lot of polish overtop of a slightly weaker story. This review may sound very negative but I did indeed enjoy this film. If you loved the original Toy Story, this sequel is like an old pair of shoes that you can slip right into without any adjustment period. Sit back and enjoy.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Tarzan (1999)

Having never read any of Edgar Rice Burroughs’s Tarzan books doesn’t really matter, because most people have a general understanding about what the Ape Man is about. Often times people compare books and movies (I myself am guilty of this from time to time), which defeats the purpose of both mediums. Books and movies exist to tell stories through their own unique elements. We can try to infer what a book might be like based on a movie and we can imagine what we think a movie should be like while we read the book. You can only objectively compare books with other books and movies with other movies. With that in mind, Disney’s Tarzan calls to my mind Lady and the Tramp with sex appeal.

In the 1800s, a British couple and their baby son crash on the shores of the African jungle. After building a shelter, the parents are killed by a leopard but the boy is saved and adopted by a family of gorillas. As a young man, Tarzan saves the life of Jane, the daughter of a British explorer who has anchored offshore. With them is an aggressive game hunter named Clayton, who sets his sights on adding members of Tarzan’s gorilla family to his collection.

How do you make a pacifistic, anti-hunting story cool to your target demographic of rowdy young boys? By having Tarzan glide and slide through the jungle branches like he’s on rollerblades or a skateboard. Maybe I shouldn’t find fault with this but I can’t help myself. I don’t care how callused his feet are or how much moss covers the jungle bark; there’s no way this is remotely possible. Maybe it looks cool at first, but by the end of the movie, Tarzan does it more than enough times for the trick to get old. That’s quite an accomplishment for a movie clocking in at just under 90 minutes!

Tarzan himself is a pretty thin character, so the film really leans on its supporting cast to make the film something special. Jane looks like your typical damsel-in-distress (skinny waist accentuating her developed upper half) but she has brains, wit, and some toughness to help satisfy feminists and cynics alike. The other human characters are generic. Jane’s father feels like a retread of the scatter-brained Maurice and Clayton an oversimplified version of Gaston (both from Beauty and the Beast). Tarzan’s animal friends, for all their modern wit and dialogue, feel like a weak attempt to recreate the magic of The Jungle Book.

As for the usual Disney elements, Tarzan comes up about even. The animation shows signs of progress in blending CGI and traditional animation, but some shots are overdone. Without a big musical hit in a couple of years, Disney pulled out all the stops and signed Phil Collins to write the music. Some of the songs are used as background tracks, rather than being sung by the characters. It sets a mood but the music never really grips you. I hope that is an objective observation and not my indifference for Phil Collins surfacing. The music may have won awards, but I don’t view any of the tunes as among Disney’s best.

As you may suspect, I am wholly indifferent to this film. There is nothing wrong with it per se; it just doesn’t do it for me. It’s loud, colorful, and perfectly fine for entertaining the kids but Disney magic seems to be in short supply in Tarzan. It’s hard to say who is at fault for this. It could be the source material or it could be the Disney treatment of said source material. In the end, it is a tolerable, largely well-made animated film that I will probably watch with my daughter only if she suggests it.

RATING: 3 out of 5