Now, Straight To Video Disney sequels are notorious for their lack of quality, and I was in the mood for something bad (Don't ask me why, I get these hot flushes you see, and...). A follow-up to The Hunchback Of Notre Dame is especially maligned as one of the worst, so I decided to put on my tin hat and have a look. I confess, I emerged from the experience somewhat... disappointed. Yes, the songs are awful, with a completely forgettable plot and cheap-as-chips animation, but it wasn't quite the crapfest I was lead to believe. Anyone with a functioning brain who's sat through The Pebble And The Penguin will testify to that.
Somehow, they were able to get heavyweights from the original theatrical release like Demi Moore and Kevin Kline to revoice their characters, rather than do what's normal and find less expensive soundalikes to replace them. This is quite impressive, unlike their new appearances... which seem to have lost a lot of fluidity in motion. Oh well, it's still better than your average Saturday Morning cartoon (Actually, that term is now dead, they were all taken over by cookery shows, of course...).
The film is just... there. It tells an unimaginative story, It assaults our ears with horrible tunes, it gives politically correct nods to deformed people and gypsies, it has a few mildly humorous lines from three bell-tower gargoyles, then it all ends in the most predictable anti-climax on record. Why was it made? I hardly think anyone was crying out for a sequel to the original. Perhaps it was done as some kind of dare? 4/10
Somehow, they were able to get heavyweights from the original theatrical release like Demi Moore and Kevin Kline to revoice their characters, rather than do what's normal and find less expensive soundalikes to replace them. This is quite impressive, unlike their new appearances... which seem to have lost a lot of fluidity in motion. Oh well, it's still better than your average Saturday Morning cartoon (Actually, that term is now dead, they were all taken over by cookery shows, of course...).
The film is just... there. It tells an unimaginative story, It assaults our ears with horrible tunes, it gives politically correct nods to deformed people and gypsies, it has a few mildly humorous lines from three bell-tower gargoyles, then it all ends in the most predictable anti-climax on record. Why was it made? I hardly think anyone was crying out for a sequel to the original. Perhaps it was done as some kind of dare? 4/10