O Corcunda de Notre Dame 2: O Segredo do Sino
Título original: The Hunchback of Notre Dame II
AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
4,6/10
8,7 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Adicionar um enredo no seu idiomaQuasimodo goes into action when a magician seeks to steal one of the bells of Notre Dame.Quasimodo goes into action when a magician seeks to steal one of the bells of Notre Dame.Quasimodo goes into action when a magician seeks to steal one of the bells of Notre Dame.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
- Prêmios
- 2 vitórias e 12 indicações no total
Jason Alexander
- Hugo
- (narração)
Jennifer Love Hewitt
- Madellaine
- (narração)
Paul Kandel
- Clopin
- (narração)
Charles Kimbrough
- Victor
- (narração)
Kevin Kline
- Phoebus
- (narração)
Michael McKean
- Sarousch
- (narração)
Demi Moore
- Esmeralda
- (narração)
Haley Joel Osment
- Zephyr
- (narração)
Jane Withers
- Laverne
- (narração)
Jim Cummings
- Archdeacon
- (narração)
Frank Welker
- Achilles
- (narração)
- …
April Winchell
- Lady DeBurne
- (narração)
Nicholas Guest
- Villager
- (narração)
- …
Avaliações em destaque
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!)
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!)
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
4/10
Like many sequels to Disney Classics, this sequel is lousy!!! Let's start with the good things. Almost the entire cast from the first movie returns. Actually, only Mary Wickes has been replaced, which is no surprise, since she is passed away... As for the new guys: Michael McKean is average as Sarousch. (This might have been a nice role for Tim Curry, though...) Jennifer Love Hewitt is very good as Madellaine! Also, her singing voice is magnificent! Haley Joel Osment has a good role too, but isn't as good as he was in Beauty and the Beast: A Magical Christmas. Now for the bad things. Character design sucks!!! Sarousch looks uglier then Quasi himself! The music sucks too. It has absolutely nothing in common with the church music from the first movie. Also, the special effects are lousy! The bell 'La fidele' should look like it has diamonds and juwels all over it. So it could have been shining like the sun. Instead, it is badly drawn... Actually, the entire animation is done crappy... and off course, the story... It's not as bad as it could have been! But certainly not worthy for a sequel to such a great movie!!!
In conclusion: Kids will like it. No person in the world will actually love it! Even if your a collector like me: don't buy it. In Holland it had one good thing: it came out 2 months earlier then in the US...
In conclusion: Kids will like it. No person in the world will actually love it! Even if your a collector like me: don't buy it. In Holland it had one good thing: it came out 2 months earlier then in the US...
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.
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
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesThis film boasts an unusually star-filled cast for a low-budget direct-to-video cartoon. In fact, all of the characters who reprise in this sequel are played by the same actors except for Laverne, Djali, and Achilles. Laverne actress Mary Wickes passed away in 1995 shortly before completing her work in the original. Jane Withers, who finished Wickes' work on that film (uncredited), voices the character in this one. Mary Kay Bergman committed suicide in 1999 so Djali was voiced by Frank Welker, who played the baby bird in the first film, while also taking over for Achilles. Bob Bergen, the original voice of Achilles, is the only living actor to not return for the sequel for a character that returned.
- Erros de gravaçãoWhile working as a metaphor for the movie's "beauty is within" message, La Fidele bell is an impossible object: with the interior covered in gold and jewels, it would be both impractical (nobody would see it, and church decorations are meant to be seen) and useless, since the acoustics would be terrible, not to mention the clanger of the bell would damage the decoration every time it rang.
- Citações
Madellaine: [seeing La Fidele for the first time] Oh, it's beautiful.
Quasimodo: Yes, you are. I-I mean, yes, she is! La Fidele, that is. That's her name, La Fidele. "The Faithful One."
[lifting La Fidele up to reveal the inside to Madellaine]
Quasimodo: But she's even more beautiful on the inside.
[Madellaine gazes eagerly]
Quasimodo: I'll-I'll show you.
- Cenas durante ou pós-créditosAs with the original first film, no opening credits aside from the film's title are shown.
- ConexõesFeatured in Troldspejlet: Episode #26.8 (2002)
- Trilhas sonorasLe Jour D'Amour
Written by Randy Petersen and Kevin Quinn
Arranged by Carl Johnson
Performed by Jason Alexander, Tom Hulce, Paul Kandel, Charles Kimbrough, and Jane Withers
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- Países de origem
- Central de atendimento oficial
- Idioma
- Também conhecido como
- The Hunchback of Notre Dame 2: The Secret of the Bell
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
- Tempo de duração1 hora 8 minutos
- Cor
- Proporção
- 1.66 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente