Customer Reviews

The Hunchback of Notre Dame II (Walt Disney Pictures Presents) [VHS]

5 star:		(15)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(13)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(18)

 

 

What do you want when you watch a sequel?

Well, if you really loved the first movie, you want to see your favorite characters in a new adventure with the same feel as the first movie, right?

You're not going to get what you want when you watch The Hunchback of Notre Dame II. The old characters are there....sort of, but they look like they went through plastic surgery and act so...not like themselves. And they follow up the wonderfully dark, complex story in the first movie with an overly-sweet simple romance.

Now, the original Hunchback of Notre Dame happens to be my favorite movie of all time! (see my review of it) When I watch a sequel, I want to visit the same world again, not a sweetened-up, underdrawn version. This movie was NOT aimed at fans of the original, but rather at the parents and critics who complained that the first movie was too dark for the wittle kiddies.

Okay, I'll tell you what's so bad about this sequel, and how big a disgrace it is to its preceedor.

1. Animation. It STANK!!! Of course no DTV project could live up to the dazzling work of the original, but this animation truely STANK. Characters moved so choppily at some scenes that I wondered if there were frames missing. When people talked (particually Phoebus), their jaws appeared to be broken. And come on, can't they at least decide what color to make Esmeralda's skin???

2. Story. A circus comes to Paris and the ringmaster Sarousch wants to steal the La Fiedle bell from Notre Dame. The bell is used in a festival that appears to involve nothing execpt every couple in Paris shouting out their true love's names (oh pleeeeaase!). Sarousch sends his assistant Madellaine to trick Quasimodo into showing her where the bell is, but she ends up becoming fond of Quasimodo (ala Hercules and Megara). But Sarousch takes the bell and Quasi now has to learn how to trust Madellaine and find true love (blah, blah, blah).

First off, everyone knows that the whole city would rejoice if they were spared having to shout who they loved to the world while a big bell clanged.

Secondly, Quasimodo and Madellaine's romance (the sole purpose for this movie's existance) is one of the weakest love stories Disney has ever cooked up. They meet with a string of bad jokes and obnoxious laughter, then Maddy sees Quasi's face and runs away, then Quasi immediatly starts dreaming about marrying the girl. Oh PLEASE!!! Esmeralda and Phoebus had a more believeable love story in the first movie, and their romance wasn't even the center of the story!

3. Characters. Like I said, the old characters act nothing like themselves. And the new characters are hardly memorable.

Quasimodo acted like a total dip. He must be at least 26 by now, but he acts SO IMMATURE!! He babbles on and on about being lovesick for Madellaine like a dope (he acted much more dignified when he was in love with Esmeralda!). What happened to his deep personality???

Esmeralda didn't seem to do much other than counsel Quasimodo about how to find true love and get angry at Phoebus for being prejudiced. NOOOOOOOO!!! SHE NEEDS MORE SCREEN TIME THAN THAT!!! Did they keep her out of the story so they wouldn't have to pay Demi Moore as much???? Well....at least her character wasn't butchered so much as some of the other characters.

Phoebus acted like a jerk. Since WHEN is he prejudiced against circus people???? They turned him into a not-as-mean version of Frollo! He kept rambling on and on about how circus people can't be trusted, but then he plays right into Sarousch's plan like an idiot. "How could I have been such a fool?" he moans. I don't know, Phoebus, you tell me!

Madellaine was a hundred times inferior to Esmeralda. I lost count how many times she'd say something like "Oh, I'm so stupid," and then Quasimodo would tell her she's not. And she has a real silly sense of humor (discribing a bell as a big hat for one thing). I cannot believe Quasimodo would go from loving Esmeralda to loving her! And if the whole purpose of the sequel is to give Quasimodo true love, shouldn't his new love be as good or better than his old one?? Quasi deserves better than this!

Sarousch has to be one of the stupidest characters ever to come off the drawing board. We follow Frollo, the deepest, darkest, and most intruiging villian ever with a vain, one-dimentional ringmaster who was ALWAYS looking in the mirror and saying things like "Oh, lovely." I can't believe Disney would even CONSIDER this!!!!!

And Esmeralda and Phoebus's son Zephyr is one of the most one-dimentional kid characters they've ever done. (Is it just me, or is Disney obessed with their heroes and heroines having children lately?) Most of his lines consisted of "Wow!" and "Yay!" over and over again, and his sole purpose in the story seemed to be to get kidnapped, so the climax wouldn't be just about saving a bell. And his design looks like they simply took Phoebus and made him 20 years younger. (Very fitting for the child of an interracial marriage, right?)

4. Songs. Awful. Typical DTV junk, especially one where Quasimodo and Zephyr sing about their friendship. How on EARTH could they follow Alan Menken and Steven Schwartch's wonderful soundtrack with this!!!!

I could go on ranting forever, but I have a feeling I'm reaching the 1000 word limit. In short, if you're a critic who hated the first movie because it was too dark for kiddies, you'll be satisfied.

But we Hunchback fans are left with a murder.

Past direct-to-video releases prompted me to buy this one and left me disappointed. While the voice work is impressive--especially since most of the original cast returns-- the animation just doesn't resonate with the usual Disney smoothness. Characters walk across the screen with sometimes choppy motion that you rarely see in Disney animation. The whole production seems to have been as quickly slapped together as the short story which clocks in at just over an hour. Haley Joel Osment and Jennifer Love Hewitt compliment the rest of the cast nicely, but just can't improve the weak plot and animation. The end credits song -- the one you have probably all heard by now in commercials-- was not only sung by Hewitt, but also penned by her, which makes it more enjoyable. Finally, the DVD sorely lacks any real extras. There is a small documentary featuring Hewitt. The "games" are fun maybe once, but don't lend themselves to repeat playing. Disney's past success and the beauty of the original Hunchback of Notre Dame make this release all the more disappointing.

It's always a dilemma when deciding wether you should buy a Disney sequel or not. On one side, you might be a huge disney fan and/or curious of the sequel, on the other hand, you've seen many others of those cheap Direct-to-video sequels disney is sadly producing at the moment. Not all disney sequels are bad, mind. But you should better read some reviews or rent the movie before buying it, just incase it turns out to be one of the bad ones.
This movie here is definitely of the bad ones. In fact, I think it's the cheapest one I've seen so far. It has absolutely none of the magic the original movie had, so don't be fooled by its title. Sure, it might be nice that Quasimodo finally gets a girlfriend as well, but frankly, it seems a little like the makers of the movie just thought that it was absolutely necessary that every character gets a lover. Even Phoebus' horse got a girlfriend!
The moral ("don't judge things by their appeareance") might be nice, but I think it's already come across well enough in the first movie. It's kind of forced here. There are so many situations where a character judges something by its outside and then is proven wrong, like the bell which looks ugly on the outside, but has jewels on the inside, and the herb Quasi gives to his girlfriend, not cause it's pretty, but cause it smells good.
The story is rather ridiculous. The feast of love, where everyone shouts out their love's name, is a cheesy idea. And Quasi's "love story" with Madeleine starts with her seeing him and running away screaming in fear. After that, Quasi already starts singing a song about how they may fall in love, even though he doesn't even know her.
The Animation is pretty bad too. There was even a scene that wasn't drawn completely! In the beginning, as the couples walk over the stage singing, they start disappearing before they reach the end of the screen.

THIS sequel is definitely not worth your money. I bought it because I heard so many negative comments on it which made me curious, but even that wasn't worth it.

This movie is as bad (or worse) than everyone has said. the animation is shoddy, and the storyline is boring. If you are looking for a good cartoon... look elsewhere. You'd be throwing your money away on this one.

I am not a big fan of Disney sequels since they lack so much in the plot and songs of the origionals. Its sad to see they are starting to seriously slack off. After all, the origional hunchback was amazing! It was dark, mature, and spicy. The songs were cevorly made and the people making it put all they had to see that it was good. As for this one, it was made by various Japanese companies in order to save a dollar. I began to wonder how they even got the origional actors to return in order to make this cheap second-rate film. I'll go over it slowly so you may know what I mean...

Animation: Yuck is right! It looks like your average Saturday morning cartoon! Far from the great graphics and splashes of darkness and light the origional had to offer. The characters moved in a choppy form, and the black lines around them were far too thick. In some scense (ie: in the staircase) the background was computerized however the character didn't blend in enough so it looked totally wrong. It was also apparant that they tried to use watercolor backgrounds when Quasimodo was singing his little number, but it didn't look truely real enough to get an overall effect. When the sun was setting, they tried to get a shadowy color on the faces however they looked almost too dark and pink. Esmeralda's skin kept changing color between frames (along with Hugo who was pink for a while). When they spoke, the lip movements didn't always match the words.

Plot: Not what I would call creative! There was the Festival of Fools in the origional, couldn't they think of something different? And they kept hammering the message of appearances over and over to the point in which it got to be annoying. Perhaps some person who worked for Disney wasn't happy that Quasimodo never got the girl. Oh well that's life. The sequel was seemingly meant for little children and not the fans of the origional or Victor Hugo enthusiasts. I reccomend you read the book and figure out that the whole story was meant for adults and its hard to turn something so serious into a kid's movie. When you do that, you mess it all up most of the time. The origional hunchback followed that book very well, but it's not a 'sequel type'.

How does one steal a bell that weighs at least two tons? You would have to be super stong to lift it, let alone get it underground. And why is a character who had such a good role in the origional (Clopin) stuck singing a small number here and there? That's not even the main point though. The love story was completely rushed! One minute Madellaine's afriad of Quasi, the next she's falling all over him and vice versa. I distinctly remember that the night Quasi and Madellaine were hanging around Paris together, Clopin said the festival was tomorrow. Well tomorrow came and then they said it was the next day! Gee isn't that funny? And what's the point of shouting who they love while a bell clanged? Or putting the jewels on the inside? If I was to manufacture a bell, wouldn't it be smart to put the jewels on the outside? Sure they used that 'inside' trick as a metaphor for Quasimodo (ahem: beauty is on the inside), but wouldn't the clanger thing break the bell? Hmm. I would prefer they not focus the whole story on the shallow romance and leave the actual good stuff as pretexts. The best part was when Quaismodo angrily slammed the door of the cathedral when Madellaine was trying to talk to him as she was being arrested - she deserved no less.

Characters: No one was like themselves. Quasimodo never fell all over Esmeralda in the origional. In the sequel he's practically acting like a loser. Madellaine is as average as it comes - how could he fall in love with her? I would think he would have wanted someone special and understanding who didn't run away when they saw him. Her main line is always saying she's stupid (she is actually really dumb) and I lost count of how many times she would repeat things. Esmeralda was sort of left alone, however her role from being a main character went to being a mentor for Quasi and popping up every once in a while. Phoebus was probably the smartest person in the film. The second he came up with the bad circus people idea, everyone got ticked off at him! They never concidered it might have been true. Hugo was really strange, and most likely the first homosexual Disney character since he fell in love with a goat who is a guy. And as for Zephyr, he was the most annoying Disney kid I have ever heard of. All he said was 'wow' and 'yay'. Clopin himself seemed different. His role was minor, however he too acted all weird. Sarousch was the typical greedy bad guy who would always lose in the end. He was not even nearly as good as Frollo because Frollo was a bundle of lust and hate. They never even mentioned his name in the film or hinted his very existance. And Sarousch looked even worse than Quasimodo himself!

Overall, I think this film deserves no more than two stars at the best. I don't think that the little kinds would care that this movie really blows or concentrate on the graphics and plot. If Disney is going to slack off, they are going to get bad reviews from the fans who actually do care of how bad it is (ie: myself and company). It isn't fair for them to do this to a wonderful movie and deep book. The sequel is an insult to the origional characters, the author of the book, and people who adore and respect it.

This is an apparent exercise to try and give the cash cow more hay. It does a great injustice to the first feature which was far superior in all aspects of film making. The story is weak, the animation is uninspiring and the characters are stale... A disappointment.

I have a theory about this movie:

The first movie was a masterpiece, but because some parents complained that it was too dark for kids, Disney made this as a joke (as if to say, "This is Victor Hugo's classic and you're complaining that it's too dark? Well, BAM, here's your watery rainbows and ponies for you!"). It's the only thing that makes sense to me.

I had just re-watched the original and wondered what the sequel was like, so I looked it up online. There were so many irritants within the first ten minutes that I could not bring myself to watch anymore.

Animation- The first movie was gorgeous, and not just as eye candy. The animators had really outdone themselves with lighting, angles, you name it. Obviously, this movie does not use those same animators. Reminds me of Saturday morning cartoons.

Story- It's so...forced, bland, *sigh*, "really? did they have to do that?" type of thing

Script- This is the worst part for me. Pretty much every line I heard sounded so mechanical, like a little kid wrote it. Don't get me wrong, I praise any kid who puts pen to paper, but it should not be a Disney sequel to a classic movie. Maybe they borrowed a fanfic? Also, the characters do not act like themselves from the first movie. I know it's years later and all, but...just no. And someone else put it perfectly when they said Quasimoto seems like a creeper in this movie. You'd just have to watch it (if you dare) and see.

At first I couldn't believe that Disney would make this after making such a classic, but when I think of it as a joke on the complainers, I do get a little chuckle. Surely no one took this seriously.

This movie really stunk, especially when compared with the original Hunchback. It was so boring I couldn't get my five year old to stay in the room to watch it, and she's a video watching fanatic. I wish Disney would stop making these lame...really lame....sequels. There's enough good literature out there that they haven't even tapped yet. They care nothing for entertainment anymore, all they care about is making a buck. Well, we rented this one only, (thank heavens!) and that's all the money Disney's getting out of me on this really rotten flick!

Okay, I love the Hunchback of Notre Dame...one, that is. I rented this movie from my local library, and was so glad that I didn't actually pay money even to rent it. I looked on the back, and it said there was only a runtime of about 68 minutes. That told me something right there. The movie has no plot, no evident storyline, and the animation is just awful. I'm not an expert or anything, but I've noticed that a lot of direct to video sequels share this quality. If you're looking for a villain as good as Frollo, do not expect it from this movie. The first movie is always the best!

Before I start the actual review, all I can say is THANK GOD that Walt Disney Pictures shut down the division of DisneyToon studios that cranked out the crappy cheapquels. And THANK GOD that John Lasseter, who's the head of Pixar, told Disney to stop making them because they undercut the value of the originals and were bad in quality. If another studio had to tell Disney to stop making the cheapquels, that just proves how bad they are. Because these cheapquels are made by a completley separate division of Disney, they aren't considered canon or as continuations of the originals (Going to the Disney parks, the Disney stores, the Disney Cruise lines, and the Disney Princess Line is proof of that - there, you don't see them advertising the cheapquels, only the original movies and characters, and plus, do you see "Beauty and the Beast and the Enchanted Christmas" and other cheapquels on Broadway, like with the originals? Don't think so!), but that still doesn't stop me from voicing my opinion about how bad these cheapquels are and rejoicing over the fact that all the cheapquels are being locked in the Disney Vault forever. All the cheapquels are bad in quality - horrible animation, songs and an awful plot, character regression, as opposed to character development, and making all the characters we came to know and love in the originals so out of character to the point that they're unrecognizable - this one, no exception. Let's take a look.

First, the animation is so bad its enough to make one go blind! The animation and cinematography of the original was spectacular, and here, in this movie, the animation looks like a coloring book! The colors aren't bright and vibrant, but are rather dull. Notre Dame no longer looks majestic and grand, but instead looks more like the Leaning Tower of Cheeza. Additionally, the characters look nothing like themselves! Their faces look completley different, and Esmeralda's eye and skin color change every few frames. The characters' movements are rather choppy and are proof of a lack of quality in the animation. Its apparant that no effort was put into animating the characters we've come to know and love, nor was any effort put into making the new characters look presentable.

Next, the songs. There are only a few, but they're horrible. I know the people in charge of the music aren't Menken and Schwartz, but the lack of effort put into these songs is inexcusable. Did the songwriters write the songs in five minutes? They're completley forgettable, and don't fit into the movie at all. The songs just seem "there" and don't serve any purpose. Also, the song "I'll Stick By You", sung by Quasimodo and Zeypher, is by far the worst. The lyrics are horrendous, and Tom Hulce, as talented as he is, can't save it.

The story is also horrible. The great thing about the first movie was that it wasn't afraid to confront a more mature story. Though the demographic of the original movie was little kids, Walt Disney Pictures still made Frollo out to be the cruel villian everyone knows he always was, and put very mature themes into that movie, such as infanticide, lust, religious hypocrisy, social injustice, and genocide. The first movie introduced a story with a timeless moral, that we should always look on the inside as opposed to just one's outside appearance in order to know who the person actually is, and that we should appreciate all those who come from backgrounds different than our own. The cheapquel, however, has a storyline that's so ridiculously laughable - a circus comes to town, and the villian, the owner of the circus, wants to steal a bell. A bell. We go from a judge who was bent on exterminating the Roma and lusting after a Romani girl, and knowing that he can't have her, plans on burning her to death while justifying his cruelty toward a young Hunchback, to... a pansy, narcissist circus leader who wants to steal a bell. What a huge setback that is! Also, Sarousch has nothing on Frollo. He's neither cunning or menacing, but comes off as selfish, arrogant, and self-absorbed. Also, we have Quasimodo falling in love with Madeline, an aspiring trapeze artist. It'd be one thing if Madeline, like Esmeralda, and the other Disney heroines we've come to know and love, had a mind of her own, was assertive, and confident, but instead, she constantly belittles herself! How does Quasimodo find that attractive? And its not like Madeline develops into a more confident young woman who knows of her worth, either. Throughout the movie, she always puts herself down! Its ridiculous.

Then, we have the characters. They aren't themselves. It was like the makers over at DisneyToon completley forgot the original movie! Phoebus goes from the brave, idealistic, solider and the compassionate man who respects others - basically, the man he developed into in the original movie, to the stupid, pompous, capitan who's prejudiced of those who are different from him. It was as though he learned nothing in the original movie. Plus, he's prejudiced against Esmeralda's - his wife's, people! He completley forgets the fact that Esmeralda is of Roma descent and that his son, Zeypher is part Roma as well, even though he doesn't look the part. Ridiculous. Zeypher serves no purpose whatsoever. He just screams and is annoying. Esmeralda is nothing like herself. In the first movie, she was beautiful, vibrant, yearned for justice, and stood up for those who needed it. Now, she's submissive, quiet, and watches on the sidelines as bad things happen to those in Paris, and as her son gets kidnapped. The Esmeralda in the original movie would've taken matters into her own hands! Here, she just stands by the sidelines and watches everything play out. She's no longer apart of it. That was a major character regression, and a horrible one at that. Esmeralda went from being a strong heroine to a weak young woman with nothing to live for.

Next, there's Clopin. Clopin is not himself in this movie. In the first movie, he was the lively Gypsy King, the most morally ambiguous character in the Disney canon - you never knew what his true motives were, one minute putting on puppet shows for children, and the next, wanting to hang Quasimodo and Phoebus for trespassing. His mysteriousness, and the fact that you never knew which side he was on, made him an intriguing character. Now, he's reduced to one song, reapperances every couple of scenes, and worst of all, he's reduced to complaining about a bell! What a shame! How tragic that Paul Kandel, a Tony nominated actor and critically acclaimed theatre and Broadway performer, wasted his time and talent on this crappy movie! Also, the gargoyles aren't themselves, either. They don't look themselves, and it seemed like they were only used to take up time, serving no purpose. Quasimodo didn't regress in this movie, but he doesn't develop, either. But not even the talented Tom Hulce could save this horrible movie.

Obviously, I don't recommend this movie. I'd skip it, as it's not worth watching. Of course, I'd just skip it anyway since its not considered canon, but if you want to watch a great Disney movie with a good plot, fantastic songs, brilliant animation, and characters who develop throughout the story, then this movie isn't for you. In fact, none of the cheapquels do any of the things that made the original movies so great. There's a reason why the public hated the cheapquels. There's a reason why they're not being made anymore and why Disney is doing all they can to make sure they're never seen again. This movie is proof of that.