Hitchcoc I appreciate so much the effort to put these incredible classics into a format that is accessible to us all. The music aside, with its wonderful sound enhanced by modern technology, is enough, but add to that creative modern animation and it's magical. I appreciated the redux of "The Sorcerer's Apprentice. I take issue with those that feel that music should speak for itself and a visual presentation is selling out. Art is often a combination of different vehicles and this works so well. As with the original, there is a bit of hit and miss. I'm so glad they didn't resurrect the same pieces from the original. The concluding piece, Stravinsky's "The Firebird," is amazing. It's time to bring this back to the big screen, so we can experience it in its full magnificence.

mike48128 Either Disney Productions ran out of money or ran out of interest. Called "Roy Disney's Folly" by then CEO Michael Eisner. For a complete sequence synopsis, see other "reviews" or "Wikipedia". Beethoven's 5th isn't even close to the "Dances of the Sugarplum Fairies", "Chinese" Mushrooms, and silky Goldfish that open the original Fantasia. The "Rhapsody in Blue", "Pomp and Circumstance" and "Firebird" pieces are the best, with honorable mention for the stories of "The Steadfast Tin Soldier", and the "Yo-Yo Flamingo". Nothing has the power of "Bald Mountain" but "The Firebird" tries very hard. The dumbest segment is Blue Whales swimming in the sky with bubbles. Mickey's "Sorcerer's Apprentice" has been "freshened up" and looks lacking in detail. Some of the segments are not well-"hosted". Steve Martin was a bad choice, and so was Penn and Teller. Getting rare. Not many copies left!

Dalbert Pringle Released 60 years after the original Fantasia, I found that this ambitious and well-produced sequel from Disney Studios fell quite short of my preconceived expectations.When I speak of Fantasia 2000 not living up to my satisfaction, it all comes down to comparing it, as I have, to the 1940 original.What I found was that the original's animated segments were undoubtedly more entertaining and their stories much more well thought out, than were those of the animated segments in Fantasia 2000.When it came to being more vibrantly colourful, and having a greater richness in style, it was the distinctiveness of the hand-drawn animation of the 1940 film that easily won out over the CGI animation effects of Fantasia 2000. As a true work of art, the former's animation techniques were (and always will be) unsurpassed.I view the original Fantasia as a literal masterpiece of classic animation. While, on the other hand, Fantasia 2000 may indeed have had its share of spectacular moments, but, it could never be considered anything even coming close to being in the league of a masterpiece.For the most part Fantasia 2000 did succeed well-enough as being fairly entertaining animation.Out of the 7 new animated segments in this picture there was really only one that impressed me at all. It was the segment presented along with Stravinsky's "Firebird Suite" as its musical accompaniment.

Donald F 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.