Wonderful character development!

That was an excellent one.

A Masterpiece!

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

According to this website, this is the worst of all the direct to video Disney sequels and although I haven't exactly seen too many, I can agree with them. I still own a VHS copy of the original "Hunchback Of Notre Dame". One great thing about nostalgia is looking back at all the films that hold up as an adult and that was certainly one of them. Looking back at the original, I'm taken away by the gorgeous animation and the mature themes expressed, which was quite unique for a Disney film. This film by contrast has horrible artwork with bad songs and no attempt to be brave at all.The original villain was Frollo, who was himself a commentary on religious fanaticism. The villain in this is unbearably shallow and has no personality other than that he's vain. The funny thing is that some people were disappointed Quasimodo didn't get the girl in the original movie. It's actually a massive step up from the original Victor Hugo novel where he's buried alive. Yeah, that really happens. The characters are all superfluous and I find the Zephyr in "My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic" to be much less annoying. The original isn't one of my favorite Disney films but it definitely holds up. I'm still glad my brother stopped calling me "Quasi". *1/2

Frollo says it best, "A bit of a disappointment to me." This whole flick was a major disappointment in hundreds of ways. Let's start counting them down:For starters, the original movie was among the edgiest of movies Disney ever did at the time. It was dark, the environment was shadowy though occasionally bright, and the whole town looked three dimensional as did most of the characters. Forget all that! It's now all too bright in the sequel, making the dark Notre Dame look as if it had been made of gold, the art is two dimensional and flat as if the artists got lazy compared to the wonderful effort of the previous film. Plus compare the opening song number: Le Jour D'Amour to the Bells of Notre Dame; what sounds more awesome: an overly cheerful song, or a back story with the choir in the background? Yeah, that's how far down this sequel has gone; but it's not over yet!So the story is that Quasimodo still doesn't have a lover, still lives in Notre Dame even after Frollo's death (why?), and still is the bell ringer (again, why?). Last time we left the first film he left Notre Dame for good, so there's no real reason for him still living there - or at least one that's never explained! So anyways there's a circus that comes for the new festival Le Jour D'Amour, containing the villain and love interest: Sarousch and Madellaine. The main reason they came was to steal the diamond embroided bell, La Fidèle. Is it just me, or does this story stink already? Thought so. Oh and get this, they keep hammering the lesson: The inside matters more than the outside throughout the ENTIRE 95 minutes! It's a great lesson to learn, but all the signs are loudly in your face and repeating all the time, like a bell beautiful on the inside, smelling rosemaries that look like weeds, and so on; none of them subtle or clever! Those aren't even the worst of what I hate (I'll save the worst for last). First off, if you hated the gargoyles in the first film, trust me you'll hate them even worse here! Hugo: undeniably annoying, Victor: slap your head annoying, and the last one who's supposedly wiser is half out of character! (I bet Mary Wicks was glad she died before she played that role again). What's even worse about them is they're alive. It's Disney of course, but at the same time they knew how to keep still for everyone else except Quasimodo. Here they act as if they forgot how to freeze! Goodbye continuity! And speaking of out of character; Phoebus becomes Frollo and prejudges the circus thinking they're as bad as gypsies - oh and did I forget to mention he MARRIED A GYPSY! Also the relationship with Quasimodo and Madellaine was way too rushed and there was little to no chemistry shared in the movie or time to get to know them. All that was shown was them cracking a few jokes, walking/running around, staring at each other, and kiss. It's a 95 minute film! Enough time to show us a believable relationship! Another thing, this is two stories squeezed into one: 1) Quasimodo finding a lover 2) Saving Le Jour D'Amour. What bothers me about that story is that why was there a diamond bell in the first place? For one it probably wouldn't ring, also it would not be going on public display, and it sounds like any other bell, so there is no point in bringing it in. But what I hate worse is the villain! In the original film it was almost impossible to not love Frollo! He did all the wicked things you'd imagine: kill a mother (watch that scene in slow mo, he kills her), almost drowns her baby, locks him in the bell tower, forbids him from ever leaving the tower, has a huge prejudice against gypsies, lusts over women, wants to be sexual with them (G rated film?), and thinks that he is doing what God wants. Now that's a real villain! He was three dimensional, conflicted, hard hearted, cold, and had one of the edgiest, scariest, and darkest songs ever sung in a Disney movie: Hellfire! And what does the sequel give you? The throw-away villain from the live action Cat in the Hat! I'm not kidding you! He's just as bad, childish, and a complete narcissist! I take it back, not a complete narcissist; AN OVER THE TOP NARCISSIST! He'll make him look handsome when he's really ugly (again another not so subtle message), he steals gold, and take a gander at this line when he's about to steal the bell: "I'm rich, RICH! I wonder if they make diamond underwear." Even kids would say that this villain was stupid! Frollo was more interesting than that, and scary! So if you either love the book or the movie, take my advice and stay away from this film! It's not worth your time, unless you want to try and figure out how it could have been written better. This story insults a child's intelligence, whereas the original movie, while having faults was awesome and treated kids like grown ups. The only thing you could look forward to is at the end credits when Jennifer Love Hewitt singing "I'm Gonna Love You." That's it! Aside from that good moment, don't go near it!

HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME WAS AMAZING however, the sequel? ehh. It actually wasn't all that bad, I'm surprised at the ratings that basically compare it to horse poop. I'd say its about the same level as the sequel to aladdin. It certainly wasn't as abysmal as the little mermaid 2. That was awful. Anyways, the sequel is cute, the songs are okay leaning more towards bad, but the plot is actually original, seeing as that most Disney sequel plots a 5year old could create. Its more like a long TV episode, i agree. It isn't bad, it should keep your kids entertained. It has some nice moments. Madelaine is fine. Esmerelda kind of pisses you off. You don't gain any sympathies towards Zephyr, their child. ITs not a dramatic or dark movie like the first. its very happy and light. It actually has more jokes then the first one and the gargoyles actually fit in to this movie, whereas in the first one they were the one thing that brought the movie down in scenes they were in. The only thing that is absolutely horrible is the animation. The first movies animation was probably the most beautiful I have seen, it was so great there were some scenes where I thought it was a photograph and not a drawing. This movie had such horrible animation. I'd say if you have spare time, go ahead and rent it. Its not a waste, but more like a time filler, I guess.

Oh. My. Gosh. Words can't explain what a monstrosity this sequel is. Before I even start, let me just say that I bought a "used" copy of this movie on VHS a month after the original release date at Blockbuster for a measly $5. I put "used" in quotation marks because this copy had obviously never even been touched. It is obvious who the enemy is at first sight because of his slicked-back black hair and evil eyes. The whole deal with Esmeralda and Phoebus having a kid -- wha...?? Quasimodo's new girlfriend is ugly and annoying. The new songs are intolerable; after hearing them, I was almost tempted to stick my fingers down my own throat. Oh, and the "I love _______" bit at the end was downright repulsive, almost as bad as the animation.Now, not all of Disney's direct-to-video sequels are bad. Mulan 2 and Lilo and Stitch 2 were definitely watchable, An Extremely Goofy Movie was entertaining (still not as good as the original, though), and Toy Story 2 was awesome. Hunchback of Notre Dame 2 is worse than Cinderella 2 and Belle's Enchanted World. Yes, it's that bad. Please don't subject yourself or your children to this garbage. I think I just heard Walt Disney turn over in his grave. Fans of the original such as myself are sure to be disappointed. Fans of the original book by Victor Hugo will probably vomit uncontrollably, as this movie strays light-years further from the book than the original movie. I say we all pretend this movie never existed and that all copies are burned. I only gave it one star because I was unable to give it a negative score.