Le Bossu de Notre-Dame 2: Le Secret de Quasimodo

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!

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

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.

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...