As it often happened in those days, the continuation of the loud cartoon turned out cheaper and easier than the original, it feels, but this time not as much as with other large paintings. Yes, the most powerful visual of landscapes has disappeared, the general impression has changed: the first part was without a doubt a large-scale work, the second - just an adventure cartoon close to the chamber. But I can’t say that the second part has disgraced the first one. Such a continuation makes sense, it does not go somewhere to another steppe, as it happened, but logically continues the story and even tries to somehow follow the historical canvas. If you don’t know, Pocahontas and the other main characters are real historical figures, she did have a relationship with John Smith at the beginning, and then she married John Rolfe, and he took her to Europe, where she was introduced to the court. But all other events are completely distorted. Should I scold the cartoon for that? To be honest, I don't know. In my opinion, the works should be either completely historical or completely fictional, and not so that the real person in the coffins are turned over by how much they have distorted everything. In any case, the very idea of a sequel about Pocahontas was unsuccessful for several reasons at once. First, the most interesting exotic stage of her biography was left behind, the audience watched the first part largely because of Indian exoticism, and against the background of this trip to banal England looks faded. Secondly, the authors did not venture to introduce a new villain and returned Retcliffe, but for this it was necessary to completely violate the historical authenticity and devalue the victory of the heroes in the first part, and this could not but cause a negative reaction. Thirdly, the authors could not bring Pocahontas and Smith’s love back to the screen, because in reality it was not so, and they were forced to somehow act out the separation and transition from one love to another, and although it is vital, but let’s face it, to look at it in a work of art is somehow unpleasant. As a result, the continuation turned out not at all about that, not there and not in the way that the viewer would like. Most viewers do not even know that the authors at least somehow followed the historicism and do not understand why it was necessary to take the heroine to Europe, destroy love, replace one John with another. They neither understood nor forgave. Perhaps that is why the estimates on aggregators in the area of the plinth.
And some other disadvantages:
- The chief gives his Indian messenger the task of considering the white people in Europe as notches on a stick. Isn't the stick a little short for such a task?
King James (James) is very strange. In reality, he wore pretentious noble clothes with lace and hats, and in the cartoon he is dressed as a comedic Russian tsar with a funny crown. The authors decided that the children could not identify the king without a crown?
- In addition, he is shown as a weak-character fool who can pour on the ears of everyone who is not lazy. Are the authors sure that was the case?
- Animals are still completely unnecessary, annoying and do not play the slightest plot role. Cut them out and the cartoon will lose nothing. Nothing at all. Yes, I understand that idiotic characters are inserted for a children’s target audience, but when I myself entered this audience, I was just as annoyed by the alien cartoons in potentially adult cartoons, they always spoiled the picture. For comparison, take the Soviet "Mowgli": a bunch of animal characters, but none is a dumb gag character, they are all plot and revealed. And this cartoon remains a cult decade.