Belle's Tales of Friendship

Now we finally get to the last of the “Beauty and the Beast” series, “Belle’s Tales of Friendship,” released in 1999, a prequel to “The Enchanted Christmas.” Never heard of it? Well, that’s because this movie only had a VHS release and was never re-released on DVD. Also, much like a lot of these direct-to-video sequels, this one was made to promote the short-lived Disney Channel series, “Sing Me a Story with Belle.”

The film actually has two episodes from the show. The first one is “Working Together,” where Belle, played by Lynsey McLeod, owns and works at her music and bookstore in France. The friends she has in this bookstore are a cat named Harmony (Jeff Conover), Big Book (Jim Cummings), and two book worms Lewis (Jim Cummings) and Carroll (Christine Cavanaugh and Amber Hood). One day, a group of children come to the store: Shawn Pyfrom, Kirsten Storms, Natalie Trott, Hampton Dixon, Jennefer Jesse and Julie Vanlue. They want to help Belle clean the store while at the same time Belle tells the kids two stories, one about Hansel and Gretel and the other about Morris, the Midget Moose.

“Reap What You Sow” is the other episode featured in this film, where Belle is fixing chili soup for everyone, but Shawn and Harmony are not helping. To fix this situation, Belle tells everyone the story about The Little Red Hen and The Three Little Pigs.

Finally, there is an animated feature with the original voice actors called “Mrs. Potts’ Party.” For those who may not remember my “Belle’s Magical World” review, I will quickly go over this segment. This was an episode planned for the television series and was released in the 2003 DVD release of “Belle’s Magical World,” which also had episodes from the same television show that were later scrapped. This segment shows everyone that Mrs. Potts, voiced by Anne Rogers, is feeling depressed since the sun hasn’t been out for a while and it has been raining. Belle, voiced by Paige O’Hara, gives the idea to throw Mrs. Potts a surprise party to make her feel better. However, Lumiere (Jerry Orbach) and Cogsworth (David Ogden Stiers) cannot agree on the flowers or cake, making a huge argument in the planning, but at the same time, everyone is not wanting to wake the Beast (Robby Benson).

My thinking is that the film does a good job telling kids that they should be a part of the team, since it shows a few of the children being selfish and lazy, and Belle does a good job teaching them that they should not be. Although children might be scared of the parts of the Hansel and Gretel and The Three Little Pigs stories, or even the animated segment of “Mrs. Potts’ Party.”

Personally, I would probably agree with Jason Wheeler when he said in his blog, “Utterly pointless. Sure it’s an actual sequel to the original film, but Belle telling stories comprised of classics is not a good idea for a complete film. Why not have had THIS as the series?”

As much as it shows a good job teaching kids basic principals in life, I personally did not see a need for this sequel. I had searched for this sequel since I was able to get the rest from the library, but VHS’s are very hard to find, and after watching it, I did feel that this felt like a special for Saturday mornings. It wasn’t until recently that I found out what it was trying to promote.

Heed my advice and try to not find this sequel. If you are able to get it on VHS somewhere, you will be able to know exactly what I was talking about with this movie. You will see that there was no need for this, but Disney was going through a bit of a phase with trying to get money off of their animated sequels. This was at the time when they were making sequels to their smash-hits, much like how they are doing now with remaking their animated movies into live-action movies.

Phew, I finally got that out of the way. Stay tuned tomorrow when I talk about another sequel that only had a VHS release in “Disney Sequel Month.”

The Lion King II: Simba's Pride

Now we come to one of my personal favorites, if not my favorite, direct-to-video sequel, “The Lion King II: Simba’s Pride,” released in 1998. Disney must have set a new record for sales of a direct-to-video title when this one came to retail stores. Don’t be surprised if some buyers aren’t parents of small children. Completely opposite to most of the studio’s direct-to-video sequels to the animated hits released in theaters, this one isn’t simply kids stuff. Joe Leydon mentioned that, “Not unlike its predecessor, “Lion King II” has enough across-the-board appeal to entertain viewers of all ages.”

The sequel starts where the first one ended, with Simba, reprised by Matthew Broderick, became the king of Pride Rock in the African Pridelands after his uncle Scar was torn by the hyenas. With his childhood sweetheart Nala (Moira Kelly) with him, Simba celebrates at the ceremonial birth of his newborn, Kiara (Michelle Horn as a cub and Neve Campbell as an adult). Leydon said, “The curtain-raiser owes a lot to the opening “Circle of Life” sequence from the first “Lion King,” to the point of being underscored by a similarly rousing song (“He Lives in You”).” Once that’s done, however, the new movie (directed by Darrell Rooney, co-directed by Rob LaDuca and written by Flip Kobler and Cindy Marcus) begins to develop its own version.

Much to the panic of the overly protective Simba, Kiara is an interested and energetic free spirit who likes to wander off on disasters. While walking through the forbidden Outlands, where Scar’s followers have been exiled, Kiara becomes friends with another rambunctious cub, Kovu, voiced by Ryan O’Donohue as a cub and Jason Marsden as an adult.

Unfortunately, Kovu is the son of Zira, voiced by Suzanne Pleshette, the lioness who leads the ones who have been exiled. Even more unfortunate is that Zira – a close friend of Scar’s – wants to kill Simba. At first, Kovu is in with his mother’s plans for revenge. However, as he gets older and falls in love with Kiara, things get considerably more complicated. I know what you're thinking and yes, this film is just like Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.

Most of the original characters – and, what’s better, the original voices – are back for “The Lion King II.” Once again, Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella steal every scene that isn’t nailed down as, respectively, Timon, the mischievous meerkat, and Pumbaa, the farting warthog. Robert Guillaume gets a chance in the spotlight as Rafiki when the clever baboon mainly sings in “Upendi,” a playfully romantic song that echoes the cheerfulness of the previous movie’s “Hakuna Matata.” Edward Hibbert replaces Rowan Atkinson as Zazu, but at least he’s still in the movie.

Leydon credited, “Among the newcomers, Campbell makes a winning impression as Kiara, while Pleshette is so effectively evil that she almost, but not quite, compensates for the absence of Jeremy Irons as Scar.” Though there is a nightmare scene with Scar, that Jim Cummings voices, but it’s just the laugh. Comedian, musician, TV and film producer Andy Dick is in here as Kovu’s brother, Nuka, and Jennifer Lien voices Kovu’s and Nuka’s sister, Vitani, but as a cub, she is voiced by Lacey Chabert.

Animation, while hardly as abundant and detailed as in the original, is clearly better than average for a direct-to-video movie. Leydon mentioned that, “Among the six new songs, the standouts include “We Are One,” an anthem-like showstopper, and the aforementioned “He Lives in You.” Latter, it’s worth noting, comes from a concept album (“Rhythm of the Pridelands”) inspired by the original 1994 pic.” Afterward, the song was put into the Broadway production of “The Lion King.”

Ironically, the same way I found out about “Pocahontas II,” I found out about “Lion King II.” One day, the movie was on TV, but I didn’t watch it since we owned the first one on VHS, but I did see the preview of “Lion King II” with the “We Are One” song playing. My brother said that they were coming out with the second movie, and when it was released, we bought it. I saw the movie a lot as a child, and last year after I was done with the first movie, I believe the next day I re-watched the second movie after so many years. When I was a kid, I liked this one better than the first, but now as an adult, I think both are just as good, since I can’t decide anymore. You can’t beat the original, but this one is also a nice one to see, especially if you liked the first one. Definitely check this one out, it’s actually a good one compared to the other direct-to-video sequels and you’ll love it.

There is another "The Lion King" movie that they made, but that won't come until later on. Check in tomorrow when I talk about the last of the “Beauty and the Beast” sequels.

Pocahontas II: Journey to a New World

Next up in “Disney Sequel Month” is the 1998 direct-to-video sequel, “Pocahontas II: Journey to a New World.” I first heard about this when the first “Pocahontas” aired on ABC, if I remember correctly, and after the movie was over, an animator had announced the sequel being released the next year. After that, he showed a music video of the song Where do I go from here? Here is what I thought of the movie:

Joe Leydon of Variety started his review out by saying, “There’s a hint of “Pygmalion” to “Pocahontas II: Journey to a New World,” a direct-to-video sequel to the 1995 Disney animated hit.” The film is too plain and standard to produce much interest from sensitive adults, but small children – mainly those who really enjoyed the first movie in theaters – will undeniably want to play it again and again. Expect good, if not spectacular, money being made through buying the movie and renting it.

After a small build-up in colonial Jamestown, the sequel follows Pocahontas (Irene Bedard) on a journey to England, where she wishes to talk the king (Jim Cummings) out from ordering a British-Indian War. John Rolfe, voiced by Billy Zane, a handsome royal emissary, provides as guide, host and traveling friend for the Native American in this new country. Unavoidably, Pocahontas and John Rolfe fall in love with one another. However, Pocahontas continues to have feelings for John Smith (Donal Gibson, Mel Gibson’s brother), who’s missing and is thought of as dead after another fight with the returning villain Ratcliffe (David Ogden Stiers).

Ratcliffe has convinced the king that every one of the Native Americans in and around Jamestown are dangerous savages. To answer his insult, Pocahontas learns how to look, dress and dance like the British so she can impress everyone at the Royal Hunt Ball. Which doesn’t come as a surprise, Ratcliffe tries to attack her entrance into high society.

Leydon said, “Compared with Disney’s more lavish animated features, “Pocahontas II” is strictly a B-team effort.” The character movements are less flowing, the backgrounds less detailed and the colors far less animated. However, the voice acting is first-rate. Zane is especially successful as the singing and speaking voice for John Rolfe, Bedard makes a welcome return as the voice of Pocahontas, while Judy Kuhn once again sings for the protagonist.

Leydon ended his review by saying, “The new songs by Marty Panzer and Larry Grossman are serviceable without being truly memorable. (Don’t expect another “Colors of the Wind” here.) But the closing-credits number, “Between Two Worlds,” gets a solid rendition by Zane and Kuhn, and might receive some radio airplay.”

Now, as I stated last year when I reviewed the first movie, I understand that the movies are not historically accurate, but they are fine entertainment to hold your kids attention. I think that this movie is definitely as good as the first one, but if you don’t like this or either of them, I completely understand. I thought that it was fine, even though it may not be as good as the first. Just watch it and see for yourself.

Spoilers about the history: it wasn't until I was in eighth grade when I found out about the historical accuracy about the Pocahontas story. Plus, as you remember last year when I told about my trip to Jamestown, Virginia, I was reminded that Pocahontas had died on the ship ride back to Jamestown. Theories have ranged from pneumonia, smallpox, tuberculosis, and even poisoning. What the real case is, I cannot say, but kids who loved the Pocahontas movies would be saddened to find out about what historically happened. Even still, these are good movies for children.

Stay tuned tomorrow where we look at one of the few “good” direct-to-video sequels in “Disney Sequel Month.”

Beauty and the Beast: Belle's Magical World

Starting with “The Return of Jafar,” the Disney studio started a new kind of movie making: animated movies made simply for home video release. Over the years after that, the direct-to-video cost definitely has taken its toll from the studio’s fans. However, at the same time, these cheap movies a lot of times do very well when seeing how many are sold, constantly making a quick buck for a smaller-scale work that doesn’t belong in theaters.

DVD Dizzy wrote in their review, “Beauty and the Beast: Belle's Magical World justifies many of the complaints. It is a perfect example of just how poor something with the Disney name on it can be. Pieced together from what appear to be episodes of a failed TV series that never made it on air, Belle's Magical World lacks a single narrative and magic of any kind.”

When it was originally released to video in February of 1998, “Belle’s Magical World” was 70 minutes and had three stories. When the Special Edition DVD came out, it was 92 minutes, and had a fourth story, “Mrs. Potts’ Party.”

In the first segment, “The Perfect World,” a dinner between Beast (Robby Benson) and Belle (Paige O’Hara) goes wrong, but neither one will be the first to apologize. When dictionary Webster (Jim Cummings), pen LePlume (Rob Paulsen, who also voiced Raphael and Tokka in the 1987 TMNT cartoon, Donatello in the 2012 TMNT cartoon, Carl Wheezer from "Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius," Buck Tuddrussel from "Time Squad," Yakko and Dr. Otto from "Animaniacs" and Pinky from "Pinky and the Brain")), and a pile of papers named Crane (Jeff Bennett) try to solve the problem and make a letter of apology from Beast, Belle apologizes herself and things temporarily seem okay. However, Beast finds out what the trio did and banishes them in the snow. A happy solution is given to everyone, and then Belle gives an overemotional song about the importance of forgiveness.

Next is “Fifi’s Folly,” which is about the fifth anniversary of the first date between Lumiere (Jerry Orbach) and feather duster Fifi (Kimmy Robertson). Lumiere needs more than a little help at making the date special, and Belle helps him. Spying on the couple, Fifi misunderstands the assistance for a genuine romance between Belle and Lumiere. There’s a lot of complaining but when things are finally resolved, a snowy sleigh ride becomes another obstacle in the way of a happy anniversary.

Third is the new part, “Mrs. Potts’ Party,” where Mrs. Potts (Anne Rogers) is feeling down. To make her happy, Belle and friends decide to throw her a surprise party. At the same time, they are trying not to wake the deeply-sleeping Beast and not to give away the surprise to Mrs. Potts, party preparations are continuing. However, each person hits a bump in the road, as no one can agree on one type of flower or cake. This is all thanks to Lumiere and Cogsworth (David Ogden Stiers) constantly trying to make the party in their own vision.

Finally is “Broken Wing.” Beast orders that Belle join him for lunch. With some help from Mrs. Potts, it turns into an invitation. However, Belle doesn’t attend their noon lunch to help an injured bird. What we find out is that the Beast hates birds, and now he’s even more furious than normal. As with every single one of the stories, the nice resolution with awkward honesty this time has the Beast accepting the bird, but caging him as a prisoner ordered to sing. Belle tries to explain that he’ll sing if he’s happy.

DVD Dizzy goes on to say, “The episodic nature of the film, complete with fadeouts for commercial breaks, makes clear the material's TV roots. With its substandard word play and subpar animation, this type of fare might be fine for Saturday morning cartoons, but it doesn't seem to merit its own video release.”

It seems that these segments were made to be a Saturday morning cartoon series, but they are so bland that it’s understandable that the cartoon never even aired. If it’s not even right for TV, Disney making it together as a direct-to-video movie is a rather shameless try to make use of thrown away work.

The secondary characters of “Beauty and the Beast” seems to not have the talent and warmth of more memorable animated roles, so it’s not that surprising that stealing of whatever personality they had, these stories involving the magical characters of the Beast’s castle feel especially flat and boring.

Then there is the ruining of the two leads. There is nothing likable about the Beast in these stories, a problem which makes Belle look crazy for putting up with him and seeing anything the least bit positive about him.

DVD Dizzy mentioned that, “The film lacks the subtlety of the original film and the artistry of its look. Though it's supposed to take place in the same universe, Belle seems to have gotten a tan and the mystique and grandeur of the castle seems to have been cheaply and poorly replicated, as if done by a no-frills knock-off animation studio. The whole thing feels rather gloomy.”

DVD Dizzy declared, “Only diehard Beauty and the Beast fans and the most dedicated completists will be intrigued by Belle's Magical World.” With the Roman Numeral “III” next to the title and the familiar characters on the cover, “Belle’s Magical World” is wrapped as being in the category of one of Disney’s more popular films. Those who are convinced and buy it for the name are in for a disappointing surprise. This is not even worthy of being called a sequel.

Even when comparing it to some of Disney’s other direct-to-video movies, which normally don’t offer the type of completely agreeable entertainment, “Belle’s Magical World” feels a bit weak. Simply the least sharp of viewers will be happy with this cheap film production. This small handful might find the surprising addition of a Direct-to-Video track and bonus features a nice touch to this DVD release.

I actually saw this movie before I saw “The Enchanted Christmas.” We rented the VHS from the library, and I liked it then, but now as an adult when I re-watched it as a DVD rental from the library, I didn’t like it at all. This is another sequel that I suggest giving it a pass.

There is another sequel that maybe people haven’t heard about, but I will not be talking about that until a few days from now. Stay tuned for the next sequel in “Disney Sequel Month.”

Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas

Part prequel, part midquel, part sequel, “Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas” will come across the suspicious among those as one big holiday cash-in, which came out 1997. Kenneth Brown mentioned, “For the more holiday spirited and festively naive, though, it will remain the quaint, quasi-successful direct-to-video Christmas special that has delighted young Disney Princess hopefuls for fifteen years now. Without a wide-eyed, Belle-enamored daughter at my side, though, its fiery furball festivities and grumbly Grinch romanticism left me cold.” It doesn’t only fall short of the original movie, its Christmas cheer is a bit artificial, and its characters skate on thin ice and its heartwarming holiday love story gets put into the commotion of its bad-tempered report of hesitant joy.

Taking place loosely between “Beauty and the Beast’s” wolf attack and Beast’s first gift to Belle, “The Enchanted Christmas” returns to a part when the Beast (Robby Benson) is still a less-than-welcoming host to his modest castle guest, Belle (Paige O’Hara) is still at the request of the Beast’s mood swings and his servants – Cogsworth (David Ogden Stiers), Lumiere (Jerry Orbach), Mrs. Potts (Angela Lansbury) and Chip (Haley Joel Osment) among them – are just beginning to start getting them together. As if those won’t fall into play with every other grouchy problem the Beast sticks to, Belle is surprised to learn that he doesn’t celebrate Christmas. Brown said, “After all, what supernaturally cursed shut-in doesn't love mistletoe and chestnuts?” Belle soon begins her mission in getting inside the Beast’s heart, goes to search for the perfect Christmas tree, and argues with a villainous pipe organ (Tim Curry) in the castle lowest point, and becomes friends with several new characters to the “Beauty and the Beast” family: Christmas ornament Angelique (singer and children’s author Bernadette Peters), piccolo Fife (Paul Reubens aka Pee Wee Herman) and wood ax Axe (Jeff Bennett).

Brown said, “Like many of the direct-to-video sequels Disney released in the '90s, The Enchanted Christmas features merely adequate animation, a simultaneously underdeveloped and convoluted storyline, and capped-budget production values.” The unavoidable comparison between this movie and the original movie doesn’t help anyone out either. The songs aren’t nearly as memorable, the romance and plot aren’t as magical, and Belle and Beast are slaves to a pre-established timeline that doesn’t let them have an unpredictable finale or a satisfying payoff. Brown mentioned, “And Belle? Belle looks as if she's gone one too many rounds with the Beast. Her lips lag behind her words, her movements are stiff, and her limbs are stocky. The graceful muse of Beauty and the Beast has been transformed into a pale imitation of herself. Will young viewers or the young at heart really notice? Any of it; the animation, the songs, the shortcomings? The short answer is no. Those with insatiable appetites for all things Disney will delight in Belle's holiday adventure, no matter how brash and bestial the Beast may be. (Although I should offer one word of warning. The murky message the film comes dangerously close to teaching little girls? You can change that abusive brute into a tender, loving prince with enough patience, tough love and stand-your-ground determination. Um... any problem with that message? Anyone? Anyone?)”

The real question is this, according to Brown: “The real question is this: does the delight of would-be princesses and Disney daughters grant an average paint-by-numbers midquel a free pass?” It might if your children are a part of “The Enchanted Christmas” age range, but for mostly everyone else, it will be just this, according to Brown: “an average paint-by-numbers midquel.” It doesn’t move the original “Beauty and the Beast” forward, it simply approaches on unimportant subplots and characters. It doesn’t improve the original story (not considerably anyway), it just squeezes a holiday vignette. It doesn’t give much at all, really, other than a somewhat nice gift of Christmas spirit wrapped in a mildly entertaining (though early dismissed) movie. Brown said, “As I said, though, I don't have a daughter, and The Enchanted Christmas wasn't made with cynics in mind. If you do, and if you don't hold your Christmas fare to a higher standard, Disney's late-90s Beauty and the Beast followup will get far more mileage in your family's BD player than mine. My family? We'll be watching The Muppets Christmas Carol, not-so-patiently awaiting its Blu-ray debut.”

With “Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas” we get another direct-to-video Disney midquel/sequel on DVD/Blu-Ray. Whether that makes you happy or has you just brushing it off may depend completely on who you live with at home, but those who enjoy Belle and Beast’s first Christmas together won’t complain…much.

I first saw this movie on TV and we recorded it on VHS. We still have this VHS recording, much like we still have somewhere a VHS recording of the first movie. I have seen this sequel many times, like with the first movie, and I don’t mind this at all. I think it’s actually a good sequel, not better than the first one, but it’s definitely a nice one to watch around the holiday season. Definitely check this out if you would like, especially since Christmas is coming up, so give it a chance.

Tomorrow for “Disney Sequel Month,” I will be looking at the second sequel in the “Beauty and the Beast” timeline.

The Return of Jafar/Aladdin and the King of Thieves

For the second day of “Disney Sequel Month,” I will be looking at both of the Aladdin sequels. Don’t worry; I’m not going to start this month out like I did last year, where I mostly did two reviews before going to only one. That won’t happen so much this time around, I promise you that. Let’s get things started with the first sequel, “The Return of Jafar,” released on video in 1994.

Steve Rhodes started his review out by saying, “Imagine an INDIANA JONES sequel with Harrison Ford replaced by a minor actor whose repertoire consists mainly of small parts in a dozen obscure films.” “The Return of Jafar” has all of the voice actors reprise their role except for two. Val Bettin came in to replace Douglas Seale as the Sultan, and the only reason why the first “Aladdin” movie was successful in the first place was because of the late Robin Williams.

Replacing him in the role of the Genie is Dan Castellaneta, the same voice actor who has voiced Homer Simpson, Grandpa Simpson, Krusty the Clown, Barney Grumble, Sideshow Bob, Itchy, Groundskeeper Willie, Mayor Quimby and Hans Moleman in “The Simpsons.” Do it to say that he is no Robin Williams.

To give Dan Castellaneta some slack, the story for “The Return of Jafar” can be summed up as let’s get the old cast together, have them dance in the same settings, sing some songs and basically go through the runtime necessary for something to be called a movie rather than a short. In this case, the movie does fill 66 minutes of video tape and can, therefore, just about be rightfully called a feature length movie.

Rhodes mentioned, “With his toothy smile and boyish good looks, Aladdin is back along with his gorgeous girlfriend Jasmine, wearing her same slightly revealing costume.” Their voiced by Scott Weinger and Linda Larkin and, like most of the rest of the cast with the exception of Seale and Williams, are the same as in the original.

In a movie that is actually hard to find positive things to say, the songs, which are not memorable, at least have a catchy tune and have a lot of energy. Rhodes said, “Before watching this tape, we tried the 1970 movie SCROOGE with Albert Finney, where the songs are so pitiful that they sound more like sung dialog. The songs in THE RETURN OF JAFAR, none of which I can remember now, did have at least possess plenty of pep and sounded like real songs.”

Jafar, voiced by Jonathan Freeman, with his evil little goatee is up to his old tricks – like most of this unimaginative movie, there are a few new tricks. The movie is more like a series of bloopers from the original than a sequel. The only way you can tell this is not in any way is Williams is not in the movie.

The jokes are not really funny or original. Even Disney’s usual excellent animation isn’t up to its standards. Looking at the credits, it looks that way for the drawing was framed out. Final verdict: “The Return of Jafar” is a pretty forgetful film.

If you remember what Nostalgia Critic said about the animated series, the problems are very much there in this movie as well. Even though Castellaneta gives everything in the role, the script gives him very little to work with. Aladdin and Jasmine are fine on their own to hold a movie, but they are so bland in this movie. Abu, reprised by Frank Welker, still has that annoying screech, and there is way too much Gilbert Gottfried in here as Iago.

With that said, how is “Aladdin and the King of Thieves,” released on video in 1996? Well Barbara Shulgasser mentioned that “I think you have to have some nerve to release a "movie" straight to video - thereby avoiding all the bother and expense of financial arrangements with theater-owners, advertising agencies and publicists - and still expect to get reviewed in daily newspapers, just as if the thing had had a theatrical release.”

She went on to say, “But this is a family newspaper with social responsibilities, and movie reviews are, to a degree, a service feature, so here we are serving the public and reviewing "Aladdin and the King of Thieves," Disney's newest animated Robin Williams fest, and projected gold mine. (The first "Aladdin" took in a reported $500 million in world-wide box office.)”

Thankfully, Williams returned as the voice of Genie, a role he first played so memorably in the first movie. Whatever they paid Williams was worth it. All they have to do is put the improvisation king behind a microphone and let him go. The results are what we thought: excellent.

This time, Aladdin (Scott Weinger) is finally going to marry Princess Jasmine (Linda Larkin), but the wedding ceremony is disrupted by the famous Forty Thieves, who storm into the place looking for the Hand of Midas; a prized relic that changes everything it touches into gold. (I don’t think I have to remind everyone that I minored in Classical Mythology in college, so I know the reference.)

When Aladdin finds out that his father, Cassim, voiced by John Rhys-Davies, who he thought was dead, is the King of Thieves, he goes out to meet him, and finds himself rescuing him from – you guessed it – the Thieves themselves.

Joining him is the mercurial and wise-cracking Iago, reprised by Gilbert Gottfried, and the always lovable but kind of less personality Magic Carpet. Shulgasser mentioned, “The carpet was one of the first movie's most endearing characters. What happened?”

Shulgasser said this about the music: “Few of the songs are the kind of toe-tappers by Oscar-winners Howard Ashman and Alan Menken found in the original "Aladdin" (although we do hear a reprise of their "Arabian Nights" from the first movie). This time, the songs are by David Friedman and the team of Randy Petersen and Kevin Quinn (songs from "The Little Mermaid").” One good one is Are You In or Out, and is sung by the villain Sa’Luk, voiced by Jerry Orbach.

The screenplay is done by Mark McCorkle and Robert Schooley, but you can bet Williams’ best lines were made by himself. Shulgasser said, “They ought to pay him a screenwriting fee.” Actually, the real joy of this move is Williams’ quick change of characters. He turns into everyone from Walter Cronkite and Woody Allen to Forrest Gump and Dustin Hoffman’s character in “Rain Man.” The animators splendidly kept up with Mr. Williams. Shulgasser ended her review by saying, “As I recall, Walter Cronkite looks good in blue.”

In the end, this movie is better than “The Return of Jafar,” since the story is based on the famous tale of Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves, but it doesn’t match what the original captured. Just skip “The Return of Jafar” and go straight to this movie because it actually feels like a true sequel.

Well, those are my thoughts on the Aladdin sequels, stay tuned tomorrow for more excitement in “Disney Sequel Month.”

The Great Mouse Detective/The Rescuers Down Under

Now that December has started again, it’s time for the second year of “Disney Month.” This year I will be looking at all of the sequels to the classic Disney movies from their Renaissance period. However, first I need to talk about a certain movie that I didn’t review last year, but didn’t see until earlier this year. That is none other than the 1986 classic, “The Great Mouse Detective.”

After a small girls (Susanne Pollatschek) toymaker father (Alan Young) is kidnapped, Basil (Barrie Ingham), this film’s version of Sherlock Holmes, takes this case, which first takes him to a rather poor bat and then to one of the scariest villains in Disney history, Professor Ratigan.

Ian Nathan of Empire mentioned in his review, “A better than you remember entry from the corridors of Disney animation during their wan years following Walt’s death and before the success of The Little Mermaid. The film is often written off as it failed at the box-office, but it reveals a rare vibrancy and attention to detail, not to forgo its daring leanings toward a Looney Tune style mania, that had all but been stamped out due to growing costs and a general lack of effort.”

Computers being invented are one reason that the background energizes again, a beautiful Victoriana touching base will every tourist guide’s appeal to London memorabilia. Nathan said, “Two of the tumble of directors, Ron Clements and John Musker, were forging ahead, twisting the enemy microchips to their own uses and measuring up a future for the medium.” They would become the reason for the success with The Little Mermaid and Aladdin. What they had was that kids had changed a bit from when Walt Disney was around, and while they wanted a good story, they also wanted crazy. Nathan mentioned, “This Basil works less in the Basil Rathbone mould than the Basil Fawlty, a hyperactive pipsqueak, never quite in control. One dazzling helter-skelter escape sequence has the rodent hero defy any number of choppers and anvils, to catch a photo-op with perfect precision at the end.” It’s also great to hear the deep chant of Vincent Price’s immortal voice as this film’s version of Moriarty, Professor Ratigan.

The music is never forced on us, leaving the story to bring us along the right, actually a little too briefly, to its climax in and around Big Ben, a part where there is no short supply of actual excitements. Nathan mentioned, “Compared to the lumpy, over-laden efforts that finally put paid to Disney’s animated arm a second time around, this is a real treasure.”

The truly amusing and appealing Disney animation that everyone doesn’t seem to remember of this movie, but it’s actually a classic. This is an underrated movie that I would highly recommend everyone to see.

Now that we have that review done, let’s get started on the Disney sequels with the 1990 underrated classic, “The Rescuers Down Under.” Planned as an easy, low-budget production, “The Rescuers Down Under” may look out of place on Disney’s official list of their classics. This film was Disney’s first animated sequel, and it continues the adventures of Bernard and Bianca, the mice members of the Rescue Aid Society, our favorite characters from the 1977 classic, and they’re both reprised by Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor.

This time, we bring the two mice back together right when Bernard is about to propose to Bianca. His proposal is interrupted when they are sent on an urgent mission to Australia to rescue a boy named Cody, voiced by Adam Ryen, a kid who spends every day helping local animals who need it. He is kidnapped by McLeach (George C. Scott), a cruel thief who wants to learn the location of a rare eagle called Marahute (Frank Welker), so he can capture it and become, you guessed it, the richest man alive. In their mission, Bernard and Bianca are joined by the brother of the albatross from the first movie, Wilbur (the late John Candy), and outback-knowledge kangaroo-mouse Jake (Tristan Rogers) (he also falls in love with Bianca when they are on this journey).

Jack Seiley is right when he mentioned in his review, “While the first Rescuers came off mostly as a detective story, Down Under is much more an adventure movie. In fact, there's no clues to follow or mysteries to solve: the goal is just to brave the Australian wilderness to rescue Cody and Marahute.” Since the story is pretty easy, there’s a little filler material in the duration. It takes some time to get to the actual rescuing, and a few random jokes and misadventures are thrown in the film.

Seily admitted, “While fans of the original film may consider this to be a letdown, I feel Down Under, despite its imperfections, is a superior sequel. It's much more cinematic and energetic than the first, which I felt was pretty lackadaisical. There are some ridiculous elements, such as little Cody climbing a mile-high sheer rock face or riding on the back of a soaring eagle.” However, when nice, it allows this sequel to show off some exciting animation, cinematography, and camerawork, played to the magnificent score by Bruce Broughton. Besides the adventurous journey in Australia, the “love triangle” with Bianca, Jake and Bernard (who keep wanting to have a moment to propose) makes for some hilarious character interaction.

Seily went on to say, “All in all, The Rescuers Down Under is a very fun experience, and one that I think is quite underrated. It seems most that aren't die-hard Disney fans have forgotten about this one. While its reputation is underwhelming, I would highly recommend the movie to pretty much anyone.”

I agree with Seily when he said, “One of the few Disney selections I feel is tremendously underrated, The Rescuers Down Under provides a nice continuation of the '70s original while soaring to new heights in energy, adventure, and fun.”

In the end, I would say that you should watch this movie and give it a chance because it is actually a really good sequel. I do agree that this is underrated and people don’t seem to remember it, like they do with “The Prince of Egypt,” but I think that you should watch this and see for yourself, you will like it.

After how bad this movie did at the box-office, Disney Toon Studios made the sequels, which were mostly direct-to-video. Disney Toon Studios also did the animated TV shows. Let’s see how they sequels are as we go on in “Disney Sequel Month.”