Il gobbo di Notre Dame 2 - Il segreto della campana

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

"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.

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.

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!

A previous commentator remarked that this monstrosity of a DTV sequel could only be watched in chunks. I found it interesting that my experience with this movie involved blowing chunks.

I know that's an awfully immature way to describe my experience with Hunchback II, but that's exactly what this thing did to the original Hunchback. It took the very dark (for Disney, at least) original and removed everything from it that made it mature and compelling. The only thing to remain fairly untainted by this incarnation of the film was the one element that was out of place in the original...the gargoyles. They were right at home in this one. That's a bad sign...it's indicative of the overall decline in the film's maturity level.

The first film centered around our protagonists' struggle against Frollo, whose lust for power and for Esmerelda provided a conflict more psychological than would have been found in an average Disney movie. This centers around a guy who wants to steal a big, fancy bell from the bell-tower along with his lovely assistant (who happens to fall in love with Quasimodo along the way). That's it. And people say the first film would have sent Hugo spinning in his grave! The returning characters are not immune from this either. They were at least somewhat well rounded out in the first film, but they have become two-dimensional cardboard cut-outs of themselves.

In fact, pretty much every aspect of the film has become flat. The music has regressed from the choral chants which were so appropriate to the movie's setting and the songs which so perfectly fit the moods and characters in the film to more-or-less generic Disney movie music (if I remember correctly; I've tried to block several aspects of the movie from my memory). There's no use commenting on the "artwork"; it's the same DTV schlock that we've become used to seeing from Disney's TV animation unit. The difference between it and the artwork from the original is like the difference between a child's messy crayon drawing and finely-rendered computer animation.

So, how to sum up? What can I say here that hasn't been said in previous reviews of this and other Disney DTV sequels? Ending with the plea for Disney to stop the insanity would be futile, seeing that sequels are in the works for "Mulan" and "The Jungle Book" (that one should break my will to live). I suppose it's just best to keep our eyes peeled for more of these imposters to the throne of what was once Disney quality. (Heck, these aren't imposters...they're not even trying to masquerade as quality films!)