The Hunchback of Notre Dame II (2002)

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

How come making a sequel to the most mature and dark Disney movies ever ended up in this pile of cheesy c**p! Hell, the gargoyles were annoying characters in the original, now everything else is dumbed down to that level. I can't express my anger towards this effort: the songs are just awful and forgettable, the animation is flat and sickeningly bright, and the dialogue is sometimes eye-rollingly stupid. Example: the main object of the movie is a bell which is BEAUTIFUL ON THE INSIDE! GET IT, STUPID AUDIENCE! that's what I think about that line.By demeaning I mean taking all these talented actors who reprise their roles from the original and let them perform this shitty script. It is just out of respect of the real talents of such great actors. The new characters are either annoying (the little new kid, ugh!), bland and unappealing like Quasimodo's romance Madeleine (She has a personality of a pre-schooler, come on) and that villain has a vain personality which outmatches Gaston. The original had animation with an epic cinematic scope and a bombastic musical score which made Notre Dame and the rest of Paris look incredible with massive crowds, great angles and three- dimensional settings. Forget all that! Now we have animation of equal quality of an 80's TV-show and stilted characters with no personlities. Go suck it!And why does the movie contradict itself by making a travelling circus the antagonist? To me they look a lot like the gypsies from the original and they were fighting for acceptance by Parisian society, remember?We had to suffer all of this crap just because Quasimodo didn't get the girl in the first movie. Thanks a lot for ruining Disney's most mature and socially aware efforts.

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

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

Leave it to Disney to remind us how stupendously well-animated their theatrical films have been by creating sub-par direct-to-video silliness such as this. The difference in animation quality, color (and color consistency), depth, backgrounds...everything is far too obviously dumbed down to low budget and possibly low talent levels.Characterization and tone of story have also taken their own serious hits, and largely being inconsistent with the 1996 feature film. Phoebus has been turned into a goof-ball buffoon as opposed to the smart-aleck but intelligent and competent soldier he was. And Esmeralda has lost her spark both in character and visually, morphing in scenes through various shades of ash (and often too dark).There is one relative high-point with Jennifer Love Hewitt as Madellaine. She sounded honestly excited to be doing the part, and the character itself had an every-girl cuteness to her.Overall, worthy only of a cheap rent (not Blockbuster, more like $2 at the local supermarket) for fans of the 1996 classic who must satiate their curiosity and see how this new character Madellaine works out.Then forget it and return to the true majesty of The Hunchback of Notre Dame I.