Let's travel back in time for a minute. The year is 1994. Bill Clinton is President of the United States, you are in elementary school, and probably none of us know what the hell the Internet is.
But all of those are secondary concerns to the big news: the Disney gods have smiled down upon us and have, for the first time, given us a sequel. And it isn't just any sequel. It's the sequel to that super cool movie "Aladdin" (1992), and it is all about our heroes facing off against Jafar, who is now a badass genie. You just knew it was going to be awesome.
And, in all fairness, it was pretty cool. I mean, aside from the fact that the Genie was voiced by Dan Castellaneta (you know him as Homer Simpson) instead of Robin Williams, it had a fun plot, and it kind of made sense in terms of reasoning for a sequel. (Seriously, who didn't want to see an amped-up Jafar kick some street rat booty?)
The problem is that once this direct-to-video sequel was so successful, precedent was set. Before we knew it, there were sequels to "The Little Mermaid" (1989), "Bambi" (1942), "Beauty and the Beast" (1991) and "The Lion King" (1994). So pretty much, every cartoon for which the idea of a follow-up was completely absurd suddenly had a "2" or "II" thrown next to it.
I'm sure that at some point or another you've seen one of these either in Blockbuster or through some television commercial. And they all seem to involve either focusing on the children of the protagonists (i.e. dumb new characters who we don't care about) or completely undoing the resolution of the first movie only to restore it at the end. From the looks of it, "The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea" (2000) manages to accomplish both of these.
Now, I could continue lamenting about these sequels and with good reason. For the longest time, I saw them as Michael Eisner defecating on our childhood in order to make a quick buck off of some spoiled brats. And that is true. But then I saw the commercial for "Cinderella III: A Twist in Time" (2007). And no, I didn't even know there was a "Cinderella II: Dreams Come True" (2002) either. You learn something new every day.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with this new "Disney Classic," I'll give you a quick summary of the plot. The Fairy Godmother gets too into the opening musical number about how perfectly perfect everything is and how nothing could possibly go wrong and ends up dropping her wand. The Evil Stepmother (who kind of looks like a combination of Joan Crawford and Mom from "Futurama") gets it and, realizing that turning mice into horses is probably selling herself a bit short, uses it to travel back in time (sweet!) to cause the glass slipper to fit one of the Ugly Stepsisters instead of Cinderella. Insanity ensues.
No, I did not make up any of that. It all happens. There's even a line in the movie, "I call upon all the forces of the universe ... Bibbidi Bobbidi Boo!"
As you probably guessed, I rented the movie and watched it with some friends. And it lived up to all my expectations. It was full of forced, clunky songs that were just there to kill time (including one by the mice that probably requires some mind-altering substance to fully comprehend). The animation was hastily done. And, best of all, it had plot holes so big that you could drive a pumpkin through them as well as dialogue that was obviously written at 3 a.m. on a Tuesday.
My extreme enjoyment of this movie suddenly posed a difficult dilemma. On the one hand, I love me my crappy movies. On the other hand, I can't help but feel guilty over actually, in some way, shape or form, supporting Disney in its quest to so shamelessly take an older, better movie and release its terrible sequel that probably took a week to make in order to appease its shareholders a bit more.
I mean, I remember I used to watch "Cinderella" (1950) tons of times when I was three or four. Is it right for me to spend time and money renting and watching this direct-to-DVD travesty which does everything but urinate upon all copies of the original?
The choice ultimately comes down to you. If you aren't the type who enjoys bad cinema, well, I guess you're off the hook (unless you enjoy these movies seriously...in which case, I suggest that you seek professional help).
But for the rest of us, it pretty much comes down to what you would rather want. If seeing your childhood ravished and defiled bothers you (as it does with many of us), then perhaps you should turn elsewhere for your camp fare (because we all know there are many outlets for it). If you can put all morality and standards aside for a little over an hour, however, then you have a harvest of beautifully terrible entertainment just waiting for you. And really, when a movie involves both time travel and glass slippers, how can you go wrong?
