Il gobbo di Notre Dame 2 - Il segreto della campana

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.

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.

Of course there are things wrong with it, but it is not unbearable, no way it isn't. I absolutely love the original, (dark, powerful, poignant and chilling)which is THEME driven not plot driven, and the music overall made a suitably poignant film, based on a disturbing story by Victor Hugo, who seems to have a relationship with sad endings.

One thing I didn't like about the sequel was the change to Esmeralda. She was my favourite character in the original, however you don't see much of her, and when you do, you don't empathise with her as much, if at all. And there were some early scenes when they animated her with no nose. Pheobus is basically a jerk here with some awful dialogue mostly. The songs were not brilliant to be perfectly honest with you, but they could have been worse, although the one over the end credits was lovely. So was Ordinary Miracles, even if it was a clone of Out There. Likewise with the animation, very Saturday morning standard, and often horrible to look at. The rather pantomime villain was neither sinister or frightening, a complete contrast to the legendary Frollo in every aspect, but Michael McKean did a serviceable job with the voicing, so I'll give the character some credit. I didn't think much of the overall plot, as it was very predictable, like most DTV sequels. The studio should have made this theme driven too. A major reason why the plot and characters weren't as good this time around is because the short is far too short at a meagre 63 minutes.

On the other hand, the main positive was a surprisingly good performance from Jennifer Love-Hewitt, as Quasimodo's love interest, Madelleine, I just loved her personality. Zephyr was a spirited boy also, and his well-developed relationship with Quasimodo, was a delight to see, and very sweet. The film was a little short, but moved along at a reasonable pace. You really feel for Quasimodo here like the original., and the gargoyles are marginally better than they were in the original, where their song was very good but misplaced(the only criticism of the original). I just want to clear up one thing. The gargoyles as explained in the book, are made of stone, and are part of Quasimodo's imagination. Also, there are parts of the book, that just wouldn't work for animation, so please stop criticising the original for its unfaithfulness to the book, because there was a reason for that.

All in all, a short and sweet, if flawed sequel, that isn't as awful as many infer. 5/10 Bethany Cox

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