The Hunchback of Notre Dame II

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!

Surprisingly touching and fun, most can not get passed the down-graded animation, but it was created by the animators for TV cartoons in Japan. The story itself is sweet and engaging and I love how the original cast returns to their roles. True this film can not compare to the music of the original, yet I am glad to see this film created, because Quasimodo deserves love and they created a worthy character in Madeline. If the film had been created by the Disney animation studio I bet people would have a much better opinion of it. You should see it, it is a cute and bouncy tale. I don't much care for direct to video animated movies, but this one won me over

I'm not saying it's one of the better Disney sequels but I think the rating's a bit unfair. In my defense, it's been a long time since I saw the first one and I don't remember much so I can't say how true it was but I am disappointed that Esmeralda was a mere supporting character and the kid was annoying. This is one of those typical Disney films that hardly offer anything new but I still enjoyed some moments of it which is why I'd rate it slightly higher than the average rate. I liked the chemistry between Quasi and Madeline. The songs are quite bad but typical Disney. I liked the little goat character too but he was a minor. I liked the way Paris was animated and how they left the streets wet and shiny after the rain (attention to detail). The ending was very choppy and abrupt (it's only a one-hour film). However, I didn't see it as an abysmal film and having read some of the comments, I think many people are being a little too harsh.