Fantasia 2000 (2000)

Lack of good storyline.

Good concept, poorly executed.

Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Having spent a long time in the making, Fantasia 2000 is the next installment in the sequence of movies started by the original Fantasia all the way back in 1940. Walt Disney had originally intended for Fantasia to be a recurring thing, with people going in every few years to see new segments set next to old favourites. Unfortunately the original failed at the box offices, not being at all what the audiences had expected, and it took the studio almost six decades to make a new one.So how does it hold up? In some areas really well, in some areas not at all. There are a couple of really good segments, like Rhapsody in Blue by George Gershwin, a thrilling jazz piece with an animation style inspired by Al Hirschfeld. Easily my favourite in the whole film and actually pretty close to being my all-time favourite as well. Fast, energized and oozing personality. The opening segment, Symphony No. 5 by Ludwig van Beethoven, is also an excellent update on the original opening segment, and is actually even a bit better, containing more colours and a stylized storyline.Pomp and Circumstance – Marches 1, 2, 3 and 4 by Edward Elgar and The Carnival of the Animals, Finale by Camille Saint-Saëns are not as great, but both have some really good moments in them and are animated very well, with The Carnival of Animals being especially good with its fluidity and humour.And then there's of course The Sorcerer's Apprentice by Paul Dukas, the only segment from the original Fantasia, and it is of course a timeless classic. One of the greatest shorts ever made. Don't let anyone tell you differently.But then there are Pines of Rome by Ottorino Respighi, Piano Concerto No. 2, Allegro, Opus 102 by Dmitri Shostakovich and Firebird Suite—1919 Version by Igor Stravinsky. The first two fail because the use of CGI, which has aged awfully. Shostakovich's piece, telling the tale of The Steadfast Tin Soldier, is especially bad in this regard, looking all rubbery and like it was ripped straight from a Playstation cutscene. Firebird Suite, on the other hand, is objectively looking rather nice segment, telling about a spirit of spring awakening after winter but running into problems when she encounters a dormant volcano. But, you kind of have to compare it to the original closing segment in Fantasia. That of Night on Bald Mountain by Modest Mussorgsky and Ave Maria by Franz Schubert. And I'm sorry, but it's not even close.The film also suffers from truly horrendous interlude announcers. Do Steve Martin and Pen & Teller sound like the kind of people you want to see cracking jokes just before you're about to be pulled into an art experience containing some of the best pieces of classical music ever composed? Of course not! Their levity pulls you straight out of the mood and you have to build it all back up again. Some announcers, like James Earl Jones, do a fine job of providing the needed gravitas, but most of them don't. It was a risky move from Disney, taking in all these people when the original film only had one, and it didn't pay off.All in all I'm glad Fantasia 2000 exists. It has some really good segments and has some of that magic that made the original one of Disney's all-time finest. It's not as good, but I'm glad they tried. Perhaps they don't need to wait another sixty years for the next one.

I don't see the beauty that is so famously Disney. Yes, the hard work was there, but not that amazing beauty. Granted, in the original, there's none of the artistic beauty in the ostrich and hippo act as compared to the Pastoral piece, for example, but even the hippos and ostriches kept some thread of that amazing, artistic talent, meshed with the music and storytelling.Too much explanation in the various celebrity introductions. They were also a bit "camp," in my opinion, which just doesn't work. In the original, when the humans interacted with the animated characters, it was done with an initial touch of surprise but quickly turned to accepted reality which was charming and intelligent, somehow. There was a certain element of humility; a sincere, 100 percent effort for the love of the craft, art, storytelling and most important, the beholder.Never again. Whereas the original? A yearly favorite.

When my friends hear that I didn't like "Fantasia", they assume I am a stupid Neanderthal. This might be true, but I never have been a fan of this Disney film. Why? Because although the music and animation are great, so much of the film is tremendously boring and stuffy. I still remember back when I was a child, as the only part of the film I liked was "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" portion...the rest didn't do much for me. Because of this, I wasn't surprised that I enjoyed "Fantasia 2000" much more--because it seemed to have a lighter and less stuffy air about it. And, at times, it was quite fun...plus, they included the original "Sorcerer's Apprentice" section!As for the film, unlike the original, it was pieced together over a five year period. In other words, when the artists were between feature-length films, Disney had them work on these various segments--and then finally assembled them into the feature.So why do I give the film a 7? Well, most of the positives I mentioned above. But, on the negative side, the film suffers a bit when it comes to the animation. I am pretty sure that the staff at Disney used this film to learn to use CGI--but several times the quality of the CGI looked old and unrealistic--particularly the first segment set to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. Additionally, while the film had some funny moments, it could have used a few more--mostly because I STILL think most kids would not enjoy the film.

I watched this one way more than the original as a kid. I never owned it, but my family must have rented it a dozen times. I kind of know the shorts like the back of my hand, so its hard to remain objective - not that I have too much nostalgia, but it just isn't as good after the twentieth viewing. :P Whenever Fantasia 2000 exceeds or disappoints compared to the original depends on your tastes, and the mood you're in when you watch them. While they share the same structure, they're quite different movies. The first was uniform in art style, with mostly abstract tales. The shorts in 2000 vary greatly in style, and most do have a concrete narrative. Animation has also changed drastically through the decades, so 2000 feels distinctly modern.I'd say Fantasia is the more beautiful, timeless of the two. But better? Well...I also like Fantasia 2000's energy, its variety, its attempts to portray character and plot without words as well as atmosphere. I'd love to call Fantasia my favorite animated film of all time...but its a slow, long sit. 2000 is more immediately entertaining, and is significantly shorter to boot.Two notable flaws - A. The comedians between segments weren't that funny. B. They latched on "Sorcerer's Apprentice" for nostalgia's sake. They're not enough to effect the rating, though.I don't know which is better. I think they're about equal. 2000 is a fine follow-up. Perfect? No. But its an enjoyable collection of animation. After rewatching it recently, I was still pleased. Even if you think it doesn't have a chance to capture the majesty of the first, its quality and originality make it an important movie for animation buffs to see at least once.