Taking place a few months or so after the events from the first film, John Smith gets framed by Ratcliffe for the act of treason that Ratcliffe committed at the end of the first film, and Ratcliffe kills him during a pursuit for his arrest. Ratcliffe plans to start a war on the Powhatan Tribe out of greed and hate, but the King puts Racliffe's plan on hold until a young diplomat named John Rolfe brings Chief Powhatan back to England for negotiations. The Chief however, refuses to go to England with John Rolfe, but his Daughter Pocahontas decides to go in her Father place to try to bring the peace between worlds. As Pocahontas along with her animal friends and body guard Uttamatomakkin reach England, Pocahontas finds herself amazed with the new world that she has just entered. However, since John Rolfe didn't bring the Chief with him, the King refuses to see Pocahontas, but after being persuaded by Ratcliffe to invite Pocahontas to the ball, the King promises not to declare war if Rolfe can prove to him that she's as civilized as his culture is. As Rolfe prepares Pocahontas for the upcoming ball as the two slowly fall in love; Ratcliffe has a trap set-up for her that will assure him to persuade the King to declare war on the Powhatan Tribe.
Instead of starting out with the lead, I'm going to the start with the primary reason why this film exists. Apparently, a lot of people (Especially historians) complained about the historical inaccuracies surrounding the first film, and were especially pissed off by the fact that the film was more about the relationship between Pocahontas and John Smith, instead of being about the relationship between Pocahontas and her actual lover John Rolfe since that was real, and that the relationship between Pocahontas and John Smith was mostly a myth. So after all the complaining, Disney finally decided to give the people who wanted a bit of history their history. However, since the film is a sequel to an already obvious fictional take on history (There's a talking tree in it for crying out loud!), the sequel will just be as historically accurate as the first film was, where the only bit of history that we get is Pocahontas getting together with John Rolfe and have a new character who's loosely based on an actual Native from the Powhatan Tribe named Uttamatomakkin. To make matters worse, not only is it pointless to make a sequel to a fictionalized take on history and try to make it some-what accurate to real history, but it's also disappointing that Pocahontas doesn't end up with John Smith, and instead ends up with a new lover that we're supposed to just accept. I don't care if it happened in real life; neither do these two films ever follow-up on the actual history that it was based on at all! On top of it, I like John Smith way more than this new love interest. John Smith was fun and adventurous with a likable charm and personality; and the chemistry between him and Pocahontas was in my opinion interesting and engaging. With John Rolfe on the other hand he's a complete bore! There's nothing interesting, fun, or cool about him; the chemistry and relationship between him and Pocahontas is very dull, cliched, and feels more like a footnote to give Pocahontas a new lover, instead of it being an actual love story arc that's the main focus of the movie; and despite him being voiced by Billy Zane (No seriously, I'm not kidding. I found it just as shocking as when I found out that Mel Gibson voiced John Smith in the first film) his personality is completely boring, along with his design, mannerisms, and even his voice resembling a poor knock-off of the John Smith character that we know and love. As for the other half of you out there who found the love story between John Smith and Pocahontas to be boring and cliched, this new relationship sadly doesn't get any better.
To make things a lot more cringe worthy when it comes to Pocahontas getting a new love interest is how the film portrays John Smith in this film, who is now voiced by Mel Gibson's younger brother Donal Gibson. The fact that he survived 4 Months at sea after being shot by Ratcliffe was a complete miracle! If he would have died before he got to England I'd probably buy into the idea of Pocahontas finding a new love interest a bit more than how this film executes it. The problem I have with the concept of Disney killing off their heroic character actually isn't the fact that they killed him; it’s the fact of how obvious it is that they didn't kill him off! When I saw John Smith holding on the ledge of a building to only be forced to fall in the water below him once he encounters Ratcliffe, it didn't at all look convincing that he died. First of all, there's no way Disney would kill one of their famous characters in the opening scene! Second, the ledge he fell off of didn't seem that high. Third and finally, even if it was high I'd still think he'd survive since we saw Pocahontas dive off of a cliff in the first movie along with her animal friends that's actually higher than the building that John Smith fell off of. I honestly didn't buy into the concept that Smith was dead even as a kid. Even when we see a mysterious hooded figure, it's painfully obvious that it's Smith underneath that hood for numerous reasons! So every scene with Pocahontas crying about John Smith's death and her getting involved with a new man, really pisses me off since I know without question that John Smith is still alive during this whole entire time. However, just so the film can make you like the new lover more, the film has the guts to turn Smith into a complete jerk who cares mostly for himself; lacks any chemistry with Pocahontas; doesn't at all believe that Pocahontas can try to bring the peace between both nations, nor respects her decision and instead flat out insults her, despite everything that she did in the first movie; and mostly makes bad jokes and puns as he fights. So if you feel guilty for ever finding a love connection between Pocahontas and John Rolfe, don't worry the film tries to make you dislike John Smith so that you wouldn't feel bad, because after all it's not like the people who liked the first film didn't want to see John Smith and Pocahontas finally be together in the second installment right? God do I hate what the film did to John Smith, and who they replaced him with.
Now that I got those major complaints off my chest, how’s our main character? Pocahontas is once again voiced by Irene Bedard, and surprisingly for a Disney sequel her performance and the way her character is written is delivered just as good as the character was written and voiced in the first movie. They don't make her act over the top and corny like most Disney sequels do with their beloved characters, but they don't tone her down for her to become boring either. What I give the film some kind of credit for is giving her an actual issue. I'm not saying her relationship with John Smith wasn’t an issue because it is; it's just that her primary goal in the film was her trying to figure out a silly dream about a spinning arrow that people found to be "unusual"! In this film, she has to deal with loss over someone she has a love relationship with and must try to move on and find another lover, while also bringing peace to both nations, that's actually way better than having her question about a dream that she finds weird. Sadly though, giving her this new issue and story arc doesn't at all work due to the poor execution of replacing a lover we really liked and know that he's still alive, with a bland pretty boy that takes Pocahontas less than a scene after her mourning to be attracted too. By the way, how does she even know about John Smith's death? Pocahontas already knew about John Smith's death as Rolfe was already sailing to her land, and the King himself was even informed about it as Rolfe was already out to sea, surely they didn't possibly have a boat come and inform them before Rolfe's arrival? It makes no sense, but I digress. Another thing I actually kind of liked was seeing Pocahontas being amazed with England and trying to fit in, and no her trying to adapt to the English culture isn't flooded with fish out of water jokes, it's for the most part taken seriously instead of being humorous. I also love the design and image of Pocahontas wearing a fancy ball dress; it actually surprisingly how well that dress and hair style suits her. With that said, there are still a lot of problems with Pocahontas fitting in. The fish out of water jokes that we do get are pretty bad and sometimes painful; the scene where she's amazed by London is ruined by a musical sequence (Will get to that later); and most of her London experience is her spending time with the boring John Rolfe as their love development feels shoehorned in, and with John Rolfe's goofy maid. So honestly as good as some of the ideas are, the execution is still pretty bad. Just for the record, if you weren't a fan of Pocahontas in the first film, you won't be impressed by her here either.
Another returning voice actor from the first film is David Ogden Stiers as the villain Ratcliffe, and he too for the most part is just as good as I found his performance and character to be in the first film. The villain is still one of Disney's weakest villains who is just that stick in the mud person in high authority that won't listen to reason and just wants to declare war for gold and land with nothing interesting or cool about him at all. With that said, Stiers still does just as good of a job with voicing this boring cliched villain as he did in the film, by making him fun and unlikable despite how boringly cliched his character is. So I give Stiers credit for putting the same amount of effort that he brought to the character in the first film. I also do find it pretty cool and interesting to finally see Ratcliffe and Pocahontas finally come face to face as Ratcliffe taunts Pocahontas, as Pocahontas tries to stand up to him. That to me is really taking things a step further. However, in terms of continuity surrounding this villain, it's just as insultingly bad as how the film pushes John Smith aside to replace him with a new love interest. I'm not surprised that Ratcliffe has a friendship with the King since he mentioned that he was friends with the King when sang the song "Mine, Mine, Mine" in the first film; but he admitted that he wasn't popular in the court and that him finding the gold and running the new world was his last chance from not messing things up. Here, not even once do we see him being looked down upon by the people in court or the aristocrats at the ball; if anything he seems like the most popular man in the King's palace! Things can't even get more insulting when Ratcliffe somehow manages to fool the King by making him think that John Smith committed the act of treason, when in actuality Ratcliffe committed that crime in front of the whole group of Settlers who chained him up and brought him back to England. Did the King, the ruler of England seriously believe in Ratcliffe's fib out of all the other Settlers who witnessed it, that's complete BS!
As for the rest of the recurring supporting characters from the first film, they too are sadly hit and miss. Michelle St. John reprises her role as Pocahontas' best friend Nakoma and while you can still sense the chemistry between her and Pocahontas, it sadly doesn't feel as strong as the chemistry between them in the first film. Russell Means also reprises his role as Pocahontas' Father. Now, I hear people talk about Pocahontas' Father being a boring character, and while I can see where they are coming from (Especially if you were going to compare him to a Father in a ruling position like Mufasa in "The Lion King" for example), I never at all found him to be boring. In this film on the other hand, I sadly do. He hardly shows any emotion and Russell Means sounds pretty bored with voicing this character again. Oh and for your information, if you were offended by the first film's portrayal of Native Americans, this film will definitely not change your attitude at all! Finally we have Linda Hunt voicing the talking tree Grandmother Willow, and sadly she too is boring and feels shoehorned into the movie only because she was in the first film, as well as delivering a half-assed message about listening to your heart. On top of it, if you thought Grandmother Willow's design was pretty creepy in the first film, here she's looks hideous since she's animated with poor CGI, while jokingly asking Pocahontas "What if the sky turns to fire and your nose falls off". Man does she look and act scary in this film! As for those of you out there who are wondering where characters like Ratcliffe's assistant Wiggins, the two Settlers, Thomas, and the Chief's best friend Kekata are, we don't know. The film never tells us what happened to them and that's a downer too because I would love to see these characters again, especially Kekata so that I can finally see him spending time with the Settlers, when in the first film he doesn’t, not even in the closing scene!
Outside of the recurring supporting characters that talk, the animal sidekicks as I stated earlier are back and if you found them pointless in the first film, they're even more pointless here. As pointless as they were in the first film at least there was some kind of purpose for them being in the film. Sure you can cut them out and the film wouldn't make a huge difference, but at least there was a bit of a purpose for their presence. Here, they're only in the film because they were in the first film that's it! They don't do anything except fight, look cute, and provide a good half of the humor. They're not even playing out as some kind of obvious metaphor like the interaction between Percy and Meeko in the first film. Their presence in this film is so pointless and unneeded that you really can run the film without them! That being said however, as pointless as they are in this film, I'd be lying if I said that I didn't find myself laughing at them on a handful of occasions. I honestly mean it too; there were actually plenty of moments where I did find the humor with these characters to be legitimately funny, especially the scene when the dog Percy gets drunk after hiding in a Rum Barrel, which definitely wouldn't fly by today's standards. Though to be honest, I was actually laughing more at them during the first half of the movie, than I did during the second half. There were one or two good jokes in the second half of the movie when they were in England, but for the most part the humor surrounding these characters started to wear off pretty fast and started to feel very dull and unneeded.
Aside from the previous supporting characters, the film offers us very few new supporting characters. First we have the King (Who only made a cameo in the first film) and Queen voiced by Jim Cummings and Finola Hughes, and while I like that the King is all humorous, grouchy, and stubborn, as the Queen is all quiet and subtle who listens to reason, I still find it pretty hard to buy that the King would be so easy to manipulate, especially with being paired up with a Queen who has better judgment than the King does, despite that she just goes with the flow on a good amount of occasions, even when finding Ratcliffe's lies to be a bit suspicious. Then we have John Rolfe's maid Mrs. Jenkins voiced by Jean Stapleton, and as much as I know how funny Stapleton can be (Like in "All In The Family" for example) she sadly comes off as an over the top annoying character with her constant obsession with serving tea and being nearsighted. Granted, it's not Jar Jar Binks or Whitey from “Eight Crazy Nights” annoying or anything since she tries very hard to be subtle, but still she's pretty annoying where even her subtlety is annoying. Finally we have Pocahontas' silent and tough bodyguard Uttamatomakkin (Remember him in the first movie?), and I have to admit he at times does make me laugh with his tough looking attitude towards everything; but just like how the humor from the animals wears off pretty fast, so does this new character where he just becomes as dull as a rock with the little personality that he's given.
In terms of songs in Disney Sequels they're normally not that good, and truth be told, this film is another part of that statistic. Pocahontas' emotional song "Where Do I Go From Her" as powerful as Judy Kuhn's singing voice is that makes you feel her emotions, the song is still sadly bland and is part of the tease of insulting our intelligence when a good half of us clearly know that John Smith is still alive. Her reprise of the song as she tries to figure out what's right is also just as bland, as well as being very forgettable. The big musical that happens in London called "What A Day In London" as the people in London sing about their daily lives, while being freaked out by Pocahontas is seriously a weak copy of the song "Belle" in "Beauty And The Beast" that's painfully corny and forced to the max. Things get worse when we get a musical number that involves Mrs. Jenkins and John Rolfe fixing up Pocahontas for the ball called "Wait Till He Sees You". This is where the blandness from our new romantic lead, the annoying humor from Mrs. Jenkins, and the fish out of water jokes are really at their worst. Stapleton's singing is irritating; the fish out of water jokes are terrible (Especially when we see Pocahontas getting different hair styles); and Billy Zane's singing is so dull and unemotional that he's actually worse than Mel Gibson's singing. At least Gibson puts more heart and emotion into his singing than Zane does. The only song I kind of liked, was the song "Things Are Not What They Appear" that's sung by Ratcliffe and a trio of Jesters that slyly make Pocahontas look like a threat as we are drowned with some really creative imagery, that leads up to a pretty disturbing and dark scene. With that said however, the song itself is still pretty weak and a bit of a mess with the different tunes and keys between the verses that Ratcliffe and the Jesters sings that don't really feel like they flow together.
In terms of animation since the film is animated by "DisneyToon Studios" that animates all the direct-to-video sequels on a budget that a Disney animated TV show can afford, the animation undoubtedly looks and feels like its part of a Spin-Off TV show based on Pocahontas by its Saturday Morning Cartoon like designs and humor that goes way more over the top than the humor in the first film. I did say that some of the humor is funny, but on the whole it's pretty annoying. The sad part about the designs for the characters is not only do they look like they were animated to be on a TV Show based on the movie, but some of their designs look pretty odd. The odd designs that come to mind are Ratcliffe's and John Smith's jaw looking really weird, and Pocahontas' necklace looking ginormous than how the necklace looked in the fist film. The CGI animation used in the film also looks really cheap. Still as much as I complain about the animation, I don't want to say that the animation is all that bad because there were a few things I did like about it. The designs and colors used for places like Jamestown, London, John Rolfe's mansion, and the King's Palace look really nice; the timing for the slapstick and action that takes place in the film are entertaining with a good pace; and some of the imagery for some of the songs like "Where Do I Go From Here" and "Things Are Not What They Appear" are pretty creative and cool to look at. Still it pretty much doesn’t make me forgive the fact that the animation is half-assed because it obviously shows that Disney wasn’t trying to make a good sequel; they were just making a sequel to get a quick buck, like with many other Disney sequels!
When I was a kid, I used to watch this film a lot, where with other Disney Sequels I hardly did. Looking at this film again, it is one of the least awful ones since some of the animation looks nice; a good chunk of the humor is funny; the action is entertaining, despite not holding you on the edge of your seat; and some of the performances from the original cast are still enjoyable. Sadly however, as close as the film was to getting my worth watch rating as a guilty pleasure, the more I think about it and watch it, the more insulting it gets. The majority of recurring characters are boring; the new characters are really lame; the fact that some of the characters from the first film don't return is a downer; the animation does get pretty ugly in a handful of scenes; the songs are bland; most of the good ideas in terms of story are executed poorly; the continuity that the film follows from the first film makes no sense; a good half of the jokes are awful; and replacing John Smith with a dull and forgettable new love interest is so cringe worthy insulting that it's unforgivable! So despite a few good things that the film has, it sadly isn't enough for me to recommend it or something I'd like to go back too, and if you hate the first movie, than you will most likely hate the sequel even more.
RATING 1/5
OVERALL ON THE TWO FILMS
(John Rolfe is on the cover, but not John Smith?!)
Looking at these two movies as a two act movie sadly fails on many levels. It feels like seeing a bad Broadway Show where you fairly enjoyed the first act of the show despite some issues that you had with it, to having things suddenly going downhill as you watch the second act making you wish it was just as decent as the first act. I'm not at all saying the first film is a Disney Masterpiece because there are many things that can turn people off about it such as the historical inaccuracies; the portrayal of Native Americans; the cliched plot; and the characters not being as appealing as some of the previous characters that Disney has created. For me none of that stuff I just mentioned really bothered me that much, but that doesn't mean I don't understand where the hate for the film comes from, and even as a person who does enjoy the first film, even I don't think it's that great of a Disney film compared to many others. However at the very least, if there are two things that really stand out about the film it's the animation and the songs, they're done so well, that even the majority of people who hate the first film will say those two elements were good or decent. Sadly once the sequel was made that turned a very touching ending into an end of a first act, that's where things started to get horrible, where almost everything is done poorly; especially the fact of how the sequel dismisses John Smith, to make way for a new lover that the real Pocahontas' married. I know that I'm really harping on this, but it seriously does piss me off. The second film was such a bad and insulting follow-up to the first film that I won't bother to repeat myself with why it's so bad since I just reviewed it. Overall as a two part film, it sucks where the second act won't please the fans of the first film and will only piss off the people who hated the first film even more. So do yourself a favor for those who liked the first movie, just stick with the first movie and avoid the sequel at all coasts.
MY OVERALL RATING ON THE "POCAHONTAS" FILMS: 2/5
Why a 2/5 you may ask, because the first film was decent.
