This movie is the sequel to the immensely popular cartoon, POCAHONTAS. For history teachers like myself, POCAHONTAS was a horrid mistake of a film because adherence to fact was pretty much irrelevant to Disney--making a film that was offensive to Native Americans, historians and cheapens the memory of the English colonists. I do realize that this makes me a major kill-joy and NOT someone you want to take with you to see a historically inaccurate movie! So much of what I have to say about these films must be understood from my context.

Now as for POCAHONTAS II, it, too, is a nightmare for historians but at least it's not as big a nightmare! The facts, while quite distorted, are still generally correct but the film is just too heavy on the politically correct side (with tons of images of the "stupid" English and the "good" Indians) and it totally ignores the fact that Pocahontas died soon after moving to England! Now I do understand why this was omitted, as countless kids across the globe might need therapy to deal with this loss! However, if you want to play that "fast and loose" with the facts, why not just make up a movie from start to finish? A wonderful example is THE ROAD TO EL DORADO--an infinitely better film because it's obviously fantasy and doesn't try to sell lies as historical facts.

Do bear in mind that this is a sequel to one of the weaker Disney movies of the 90s. Don't get me wrong, its predecessor is a very good movie, that was compensated by beautiful songs and gorgeous animation, but let down by weak secondary character development. It is a direct to video sequel, and it wasn't as good as the original, and I honestly wasn't expecting it to be. Also the very poignant ending of the first film was suggestive of a sequel. The sequel is definitely blander, I thought Uti was unnecessary, the dialogue was awful mostly and the editing could've been better. The animation isn't as stunning as the original, but my advice to all of you is to watch it with low expectations,as there is a beautiful ballroom scene, even if the rest of the rest of the film lacks detail and precision. The songs are not as spectacular as the original, but they aren't horrible, I loved the one over the end credits, and where do I go from here. It was a huge advantage having Judy Kuhn back on board, as she did a fantastic job with Pocahontas's singing voice. Billy Zane is a good singer, can't say the same for his acting. The plot wasn't that original, but it was attempting to stay close to the legend. There was a bit of humour, but not much, and I liked the fact that Ratcliffe was more villainous, and that they kept Pocahontas the same, apart from some rather ludicrous dialogue. I also think, it was a wise move replacing Mel Gibson. I didn't really like the ending that much though, it ruined the love story of the first film. All in all, fairly watchable, but watch with low expectations. 6.5/10 Bethany Cox

I sort of enjoyed the first Pocahontas film that was released in 1995, I never got to see the second one, so I figured why not give most Disney sequels a chance? I mean The Lion King trilogy was actually pretty good along with Aladdin and Toy Story. But this was a very cheesy and incredibly disgraceful to history and Disney in general. I don't judge normally on movies with history, but I worry that because this is a viewing for children that they will get things mixed up. I know it's a stupid reason, but I just take history very seriously. It's a movie for the kids, nothing more, no good jokes for the adults to laugh at. Not to mention the editing was pretty cheap.

4/10