MovieChat Forums > Fantasia 2000 (2000) Discussion > Very disappointing, compared to the orig...

Very disappointing, compared to the original


The original Fantasia is, IMO, the finest film Disney ever produced -- greater even than Sleeping Beauty -- and the pinnacle of animated art. Yes, the finest animated film ever made. Indeed, I consider it one of the five greatest films of any kind ever made in movie history, period.

That's a pretty high bar. Unsurprisingly -- but as I expected -- Fantasia 2000 falls terribly short.

There is overall a far lesser degree of imaginative genius in this film compared to the original, as well as poorer musical selections, and an unappealing approach to the narration.

Only one segment -- the "Steadfast Tin Soldier" sequence -- can be considered in the same breath as any material from the original Fantasia. It's an excellent story, weakened only by the Shostakovish composition itself, which is not among the greatest works of classical music.

The only other strong segment is "The Firebird" sequence. Far inferior when compared to either the Night on Bald Mountain/Ave Maria segment or the Rite of Spring segment from the original Fantasia, though it does have some power in the figure of the Firebird itself. The overall narrative is a bit thin, and the earth spirit isn't quite as appealing as it could have been, but the woodland-deer figure is an interesting presence.

Beethoven's 5th is a terrible disappointment. Truncated unforgivably and needlessly (when it's only a 7 min movement to begin with), after a reasonable beginning it descends into poor and unattractive abstractions that look like modern art, and seems a bit of a jumble, lacking stylistic unity.

More significantly, though -- and this is true of most of the segment of the film -- it lacks sympathy with the music. The genius of the original Fantasia was that it wasn't just animation with a soundtrack; the animation genuinely arose out of the emotions that the music attempts to convey. In the original Fantasia, the animation seems to be an organic outgrowth of the music; here, it just seems tacked on.

The same is true of the Pines of Rome sequence. How disappointing. Such a powerful piece, and it's reduced to some politically correct depiction of wales. The original composition, of course, intended to depict the marching of the ghostly Roman legions on the Appian Way. It should have been something more martial -- perhaps literally marching pine trees. But vaguely military, evoking an imperial spirit. The animation here actually undermines and diminishes the composition.

Rhapsody in Blue is properly not even classical music at all, but jazz; but even so, this was the most pedestrian animation in the entire movie, barely worthy of a TV short, let alone a sequence in a feature film. Uninteresting characters doing uninteresting things. Gershwin deserved much better than this.

Carnival of the Animals -- truncated severely, to just the finale! -- attempts to be the "silly" portion of the program, but oh, how unfunny and un-entertaining it is, compared to, say, the Dance of the Hours segment in the original. Once again, a lack of wit and imagination, and completely unremarkable animation.

Pomp and Circumstance has very much a Lion King look, which is fine as far as it goes (although it's worth pointing out that in the case of the original Fantasia, Fantasia was the originator that later films copied, not the other way around). Some dramatic shots here, but the silliness with Donald Duck undercuts it. There's a real disjunct of tone here; the silliness diminishes the epic animation, and the epic animation overpowers the modest little story between the Ducks. Some of the animation is beautiful, but the music seems like just a soundtrack, not something that determines what the animation will be like.

And the celebrity cameos were basically useless, not particularly funny and not performed very well. What a contrast to the stately, dignified, erudite narrator of the original.

Everything about this film feels like it relates to the original Fantasia the way those cheap, direct-to-DVD Disney sequels relate to the original Disney theatrical films.

All in all, very disappointing. There's no way it could have been as good as the original, but it could have come much closer.

reply

It's been a long time, but I completely agree with your thoughts on Fantasia 2000.

A note on the Firebird closing; this was the only bit that really hit me emotionally, but in hindsight that may have been more due to Stravinsky than the elk, sprite, and firebird.

Roger Ebert said the sequel aimed for broader appeal, which I don't disagree with. Most people I know actually strongly dislike the Night on Bald Mountain/Ave Maria sequence, which is what made me take it seriously. Fantasia 200 is too calculated, I think.


A shame, too - some real auteurs could have made a beautiful testament to Walt, animation, and classical music with this film. Sad.

reply

Just pointing out some implied inaccuracies in your post, two actually. "Rhapsody in Blue is properly not even classical music at all, but jazz" This is correct. However, you are attempting to compare Jazz and Classical which is an invalid comparison. There is no period in our history of music called "Jazz." These two cannot be properly compared as one is a genre, and the other is a time period. Point in fact the ONLY piece in Fantasia 2000 which is classical is the Beethoven. Most of them are Romantic. And even calling Beethoven's music Classical is debatable. Yes, we consider Beethoven to have been a Classical composer due to his dates, yet he was broaching the divide between Classical and Romantic period characteristics. Classical period music is distinguished by, among other things, simple melodies, and fairly strict adherence to forms. Romantic music is used mostly in Fantasia, in my opinion, because that time period is marked by, again, among many other things, program music, in which a composer would write music with a particular emotional or programmatic idea in mind. Classical music, while amazing and profound in many ways, does not lend itself very well to creating "stories." Jazz belongs properly to 20th Century period, which is a vey complicated in its forms, and compositional styles. Included would be atonalism, serialism, a turn toward more chromaticism (Stravinsky for instance - and a lot of Jazz), as well, as continuing some past practices (neo classicism neo romanticism for example).

reply

Far more eloquently stated than I intended to in my own comment on Fantasia 2000. I loved the original, and was interested to see what the second installment might have accomplished. I found it extremely infantile and poorly illustrated. It left me with the single thought (which was going to be the extent of my post), "wow, that sucked".

reply

Far more eloquently stated than I intended to in my own comment on Fantasia 2000. I loved the original, and was interested to see what the second installment might have accomplished. I found it extremely infantile and poorly illustrated. It left me with the single thought (which was going to be the extent of my post), "wow, that sucked".

yes, this was my reaction as well.

reply