The Hunchback of Notre Dame II

The first HOND is my favorite Disney film of all time, and definitely ranks in my top five films favs EVER. This film, however, is just a joke to try and entertain children with a watered-down, lighthearted comedy movie that fails to be original or entertaining. The animation is crap, the plot line is simple enough to bore you to death, and the villain is not even a fraction of the greatness Frollo was. All the villain is after is a stupid bell, how boring is that? The characters aren't even that likable, even Esmeralda, Phoebus, and Quasi don't share the same spark of personality they had in the first film. They're basically cardboard cutout characters. The songs are annoying and guess what? The may have killed off Frollo, one of the deepest villains in Disney history, but at least they still have the cute gargoyle sidekicks! (shoot me now.) Don't bother seeing this film, just don't. It is absolutely the worst Disney sequel I have ever seen in my entire life.

Now, I rented Hunchback of Notre Dame 2 in good hopes because I loved the first one. I was a little curious to see how the second one would end the story. While this could definitely be entertaining to children, for adults the story is way too predictable and the songs just aren't as magical as the first. Now, I'm not completely bashing the movie because it's not terrible. I did like how Quasy found a person who loved him for him and it was a very happy ending. Just again, I don't want to spoil anything, but the plot is just pretty much what you've seen before and if you watch this you'll see again. For the kids I highly recommend because it teaches good values. Otherwise for adults, it's not really for us.

4/10

Lets see, how can I describe Hunchback of Notre Dame II, the sequel to a Disney classic? I think George Carlin said it best when he said... (look at my one line summary)how dare Disney make a sequel to such a good film? I mean really, there was nothing good about this film. It was cheesy, boring, had corny jokes, and dreadful animation!

I saw this one with my sister (who you would know better as dlmcmaster) and we both hatted it! seriously, the gargoyles in the first film where great, in the sequel, they were stupid and extremely annoying! The whole thing blew major chunks and was a travesty to the house of Disney. Now I was not expecting something great, as a matter of fact, I rented it for the sheer purpose of riping it a new one. But nothing can prepare you for Hunchback II.

"Walt Disney Television Animation"? Yes, well, like most of their (ill-advised) made-for-video sequels, "The Hunchback of Notre Dame II" was produced by Walt Disney's TV cartoon division; the most glaring difference between their cinematic animation and their small-screen animation comes from one look at "Tarzan" and the subsequent TV series, but this here movie is still a disgrace - both for purists (note that the credits don't mention Victor Hugo) and for those of us who liked the 1996 movie, which is in fact one of the House of Mouse's better 1990s efforts.

The 1996 movie is one of the House of Mouse's better 1990s efforts because it had a stronger story and better characterisation than some of the ones that came before it, although Alan Menken and Stephen Schwartz weren't operating at the height of their powers ("The Bells Of Notre Dame" and "Topsy Turvy" excepted). Neither of them were involved with this followup, and the songs are the first problem with the movie; they feel like they were put in to expand the running time - still titchy at a mere 63 minutes. Too bad the script couldn't have been developed properly; they might not have needed to pad it. (Carl Johnson's score is better, though not up to his work on "Gargoyles." Then again, most Walt Disney Television stuff isn't up to their work on "Gargoyles." But I digress.)

The storyline has the happier Quasimodo, Phoebus and Esmeralda (now married with a son called Zephyr [voiced, for some reason, by Haley Joel Osment] - pause for purists to choke on whatever they're eating) getting ready for Le Festival d'Amour, which the H of ND is unlikely to celebrate, he being single. Enter a circus and the ringmaster's lovely assistant Madellaine, who nurtures an interest in our hunched hero... except that the magician is behind it. And the story is as tedious in its predictability as the animation is just tedious, making the waste of the voice cast all the more regrettable (all the main cast members from the movie return [barring the late Mary Wickes - Jane Withers, who shared Laverne with Miss Wickes last time, assumes the role in its entirety this time], and Michael McKean gives the movie some real energy as the villain, a more charismatic magician than David Blaine if a less trustworthy one - "I'd kiss me," he says into his mirror, "but I might fall in love!")... Madellaine has a dream of being a tightrope walker, and I bet you can't guess what she finds herself doing in the course of the movie.

It's all such a complete waste; sometimes a mildly diverting waste, but a waste nonetheless - it pains me to say that Victor, Hugo and Laverne (a highpoint of the first movie) have the low point with the movie's most horrible musical number. But Jennifer Love Hewitt fans can enjoy her vocal performance as Madellaine, plus the song she sings over the closing titles; Kylie Minogue she isn't, fortunately for us all.

However, the fact that the copyright notice reads "2000" and not "2002" should tell you everything.

Of course I don't expect Disney direct-to-video sequels, with their little budgets, to look and feel as spectacular as the originals. In fact, of all of them that I have seen, I still think Beauty and the Beast Enchanted Christmas looks the most like a theatrical motion picture, probably because it was not staffed out to any Japanese animation factories (though it does have some stiff moments that look like they were left to the junior animators.)

Being as I am not a Disney collector, I must say my interest is in the characters and the story, which plays a little like a long Saturday morning cartoon - very easy and predictable. (I guess they figure that if there's no trip to the movie theater, adults won't have to sit through these sequels if they don't want to.) But even for someone my age (29) it had some unexpected and touching moments, not to mention a nifty joke or two. I also just can't get over how sweet Quasimodo can be when Tom Hulce plays him. That in itself is worth a viewing. I also dig Madelaine. She's not yer typical Disney chick. I even risk saying she's right up there with Belle on the cool meter. She and Quasimodo have some great scenes.

I did miss some of the musical aspects of the first film. But the song "Ordinary Miracles" has stuck with me pretty good. I think the score just needed more recorders in it. :-) That's what I really missed, that 1490's kind of sound.

And so for all the positives, I have to look past the harsher lines and colors, some lack of detail (though I have to mention the backgrounds were pretty nice), and absence of big-budget digital post production. I've done enough animation myself to know how much work went into this little movie, and what counts to me is that the characters are all there, satisfying to see again. It also fills a little hole left in my heart by the first movie. Without giving away what happens: it was very sweet, to say the least.

No, Hunchback of Notre Dame II is not for film critics, but I think all you regular people will enjoy it!