The Hunchback of Notre Dame II (2002 Video) User Reviews

Oh, Disney released straight to video, you know that can't usually be good

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 4/10 · 15 June 2006]

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

I can't vote lower than 1??

[awsum_ginger · 5/10 · 10 March 2007]

The first HOND is my favorite Disney film of all time, and definitely ranks in my top five films favs EVER. This film, however, is just a joke to try and entertain children with a watered-down, lighthearted comedy movie that fails to be original or entertaining. The animation is crap, the plot line is simple enough to bore you to death, and the villain is not even a fraction of the greatness Frollo was. All the villain is after is a stupid bell, how boring is that? The characters aren't even that likable, even Esmeralda, Phoebus, and Quasi don't share the same spark of personality they had in the first film. They're basically cardboard cutout characters. The songs are annoying and guess what? The may have killed off Frollo, one of the deepest villains in Disney history, but at least they still have the cute gargoyle sidekicks! (shoot me now.) Don't bother seeing this film, just don't. It is absolutely the worst Disney sequel I have ever seen in my entire life.

A short and sweet film, that is not as bad as most people say!

[TheLittleSongbird · 5/10 · 11 March 2009]

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

ok for a sequel **contains a few Spoilers**

[angelbearQ · 27 November 2002]

First of all, let me say that I absolutely LOVED The original Hunchback of Notre Dame.Epecially the music That being said, It hurts deeply to say that this was one of the worst Disney movies EVER. I'm rather sure that poor Walt is rolling in his grave over this atrosity

Problems- Esmerelda completly lost her vivacious personality. Pheobus is still an idiot. Quasimodo still has NO self esteem Zypher is more of a prop than a character. The character design was awfull! The music was totally pointless except to save viewers from the dull,weak dialouge for a few minutes. The villian was way too Narcystic(obsessed with himself) The plot (both romantic & otherwise)is WEAK. Pheobus keeps dissing Esmerelda's type of people(gypsies, cicus workers, general nomads..)

I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS: **What happened in the music department?The songs were horrid and very ill-timed.Much worse than in the original. **Why does Disney always turn great characters in to horrible,worrywart,annoying parents???

so , The Hunchback of Notre Dame II gets a 4/10 LATER, Angelbearq

Simply awful

[ChibiAnna · 1/10 · 17 October 2004]

This is not a movie. This is an exercise in how NOT to make a movie. Don't even sic this on your kids. The only ones who might get a kick out of it would be under 7, and even my younger sister (5 at the time) thought it was stupid.

First of all, the voices have changed again, and it is awful. As with any very bad or very good Disney movie there are too many songs. As for plot, there is an Evil Genius Dude whom we know is evil because he laughs evilly. He is the good girl's boss. Quasimodo falls in love with good girl, etc., etc., which involves a lot of singing. Yawn.

Just... just awful. Not even worth collecting and burning copies of. It's that bad.

Overall: 2/10... the only good thing is that the animation beats the third-world countries'.

And they say the first movie was an insult to the Victor Hugo book?!

[tonymph · 2/10 · 14 July 2014]

Damn this word limit.

I'd heard the reviews and comments of this movie; None of them even came anywhere near close to truly doing justice to how much of an abomination this horrible sequel it is.

My second favorite Disney film of all time has just been utterly ruined by the thought of such a lame, boring and anticlimactic sequel. I feel like I've just seen a close friend get bludgeoned to death and I just sat there and watched in horror.

How can they take the wondrous animation of the original, which I think looked better than anything, and turn out with something that looks worse than Youtube flash animations in the sequel? It looks downright lazy with how choppy it is. And Phoebus? What have they done to him, he was an utter jackass with no real explanation here! At least when Simba was like that in The Lion King II, he had a damn good reason to be so.

And what did they do to Esmarelda's design? She looks horrid compared to her original counterpart, and her eyes were blue! They're supposed to be green, idiot animators, green as in emeralds, hence her name? We clearly saw Esmarelda's green eyes in broad daylight before! They were never blue at any point in the original, so what happened here? Oh, and the villain... dear God, what a pathetic waste of animation.

You're telling me that this insufferable idiot of a magician is supposed to be the successor to Judge Frollo of all people? Frollo was amongst the most complex of any Disney villain ever conceived, he was interesting, lustful, deceptive, dishonest, and he burnt Paris to the ground because he thought he was some sort of soldier for God. He followed what the Church did, but not what it said, he was so great.

But here, it's just a circus owner who wants a bell. That's it. Nothing more. Disappointing doesn't even begin to cover what that is! Not to mention, I REALLY hate using this term to describe things I don't like and hearing others use it, but I have no choice in this case: The villain was, both figuratively and literally, gay. His unsettling love for himself was just uncomfortable to watch, and his voice is absolutely unbearable.

The only positives that I have is that the backgrounds look nice, and that Quasimodo and Madaline did have some legit good chemistry. But even then that's flawed. Quasimodo meets her once, and then after she runs off from him being ugly, he starts singing about marrying the girl! What? That's rushed even by Disney standards! Their romance lasts three days TOPS, and it happens literally immediately. For comparison, look at Kiara and Kovu, once again from TLKII- They didn't even START to fall in love until the 2 day mark, and even then they knew each other since childhood, so they had a brief, yet impactful friendship to build it upon. Where was that in The Hunchback of Notre Dame II? Where I ask?

Oh, and that's another thing! How could they take The Hunchback of Notre Dame, one of the most complex, deep and rich Disney stories ever told, and follow it up with something so simplistic that it's insulting to its own intelligence? All that happens is the villain steals a bell, and that doesn't even happen until 45 minutes in. The whole movie is only 58 minutes long too, so the conflict, rising action, climax, falling action and resolution all happen in the span of time that a regular Spongebob episode would last! In a sequel to one of the best animated stories ever told! Until the climax, it was so degradingly boring that I almost didn't make it through.

And although the romance had good chemistry, I still can't fathom the principle of Quasimodo getting the girl in the end. One of the reasons Hunchback is my second favorite Disney movie of all time was because it was one of the few Disney flicks where the main character doesn't get married in the end. He walked away with self respect, dignity, and the pride that he had saved all of Paris from Frollo in that awesome final battle scene. Here, they just take that and chuck it out the window for an oh-so typical Disney trope and ruin one of Quasimodo's best traits as a character. Could they just not handle having even one of their characters go without getting the girl in the end so they can keep in line with that tired tradition? And the girl they gave him wasn't even worthy, either. She's not horrible, but it's incredibly underwhelming how she has no personality traits outside of being clumsy and stupid.

Also, why are none of the events of the last movie even mentioned at all? Frollo is not acknowledged by name once. NOT. ONCE. A man who burnt Paris to the ground, lied to Quasimodo all his life and kept him locked in the bell tower for 20 years, and convinced him that he was a horrible creature who'll never be loved is not even hinted at, as though the last movie never even happened. You could've taken out Frollo all together and it wouldn't have made a difference. There's no continuation of his actions, no consequences, no shots of Paris rebuilding after his attack. Nothing.

Just when things like The Lion King II and Aladdin and the King of Thieves gave me hope that Disney sequels had another, brighter side to them, then comes this. I suppose those select few really are the only good ones out there. My faith in future Disney sequels has been greatly reduced, if not shattered now all together.

Bottom line, this is one of the worst things I've ever seen in my life!

Sigh...

[galactapotter · 1/10 · 2 March 2019]

If ever there was a stereotypically bad Disney sequel, this is undoubtedly it.

Absolutely awful all across the board...... don't lethe very few high ratings below fool you!!!!

[sagy-18641 · 1/10 · 4 July 2020]

I only gave it a #1 because it wouldn't let me rate it 0//10!

I was only 7 years old when this came out and was sooo incredibly mortified at the lack of quality that I never watched it again. I understand it was low budget, but why disrespect the first HBON by even giving it this ghastly sequel?...... and the excuse that "it's meant for child" doesn't justify a films horrid/idiotic storyline.....

Please understand that this was horrible!

[ravenfeather23 · 1/10 · 28 July 2010]

I am still trying to hold my dinner down in fear that i am going to throw up all over the computer. I started to watch the opening and the first thing you see is the HORRIBLE i mean HORRIBLE animation. I mean a blind handless person could draw better then this! I LOVED the FIRST movie, it was one of the darkest and realistic (for Disney) movies and I loved the music as well (but how it got the rating G, I will never know and don't want to know what hell they gave for it) The animation was horrible and I could feel tears in my eyes just watching this. Also there is happy IloveTheWorld music going on not the dark dramatic choir and bells ringing like in the first. Oh no it gets much worse. You see our Hunchback buddie leaping house to house hanging up flowers and everyone is trying to set up a festival (and are failing horribly). Clopin (the singing gypsies)is standing on a platform with a flower arch over his head and thats pretty much the decoration. and they wont stop stuffing flowers into the arch, its pretty much in every other shot.

And they are getting ready for their FAVORITE festival!! (what happened to the feast of fools?)I cannot even hear what they are saying with the bad sound quality. Its a festive for love (oofff cooouuurrrssee) And My favorite character Clopin is dancing around with Quasimodo (Quasi for short) like there about to get married. And Quasi is handing out flowers and no one seems to care about the fact that he is not normal. While they are singing there horribly written song about love (Shivers) You see Phoebus on his horse. And Oh my F*** god its the worse animation I've seen in 15 Years. And somehow Esperelda has grown like ten feet and is taller then him while he is sitting up on a horse and kisses him in horrible animation. For the rest of this song they just take things from the first movie and slap it in. Clopin playing with his puppets and such and everyone is happy and smiling even though half of Paris just burned down with all of there people!! YAY HALF OF THE CITY IS GONE!!! Then those sidekick statues are fighting and its pretty stupid. "To bad there's not enough of me to go around" "Good thing" "Hey was that a shot?" WTF?!

The thing that made me turn this off was Phoebus saying "I hope you ring the bell loud enough because ima gonna make Esmeralda scream She loves me and make her scream my name!!" DEAR GOD THIS IS A KIDS MOVIE!!!

This movie cannot be a Disney movie. Its either the dirty sex jokes they somehow failed to see or the bad animation and the characters are STILL wearing the same clothes. The only thing I liked was the cute little son of Phoebes and Esmeralda, he was pretty cute.

I actually liked this one despite the fact its only an hour long

[lisafordeay · 7/10 · 17 April 2011]

OK I admit it I recorded this on VHS 7 years ago and quite frankly I thought it was a nice sweet film. The original voice cast is back and the animation isn't spectacular. Quasimodo( voiced by Tom Hulce)hasn't found true love for himself and so when the circus arrives in Paris he falls in love with a girl named Madeline(voiced by Ghost Whisperer's Jennifer Love Hewitt)who is working for a villain named Saduch who is so vain I felt like he was a cloned version of Gaston.

The songs were nice and the plot is like Beauty & the Beast ugly guy falls for a pretty girl who likes him for what he is(e.g don't judge a book by its cover).

I am going to give this film a 7.5/10.

Cute

Hellfire!

[bonniejoy-978-68763 · 2/10 · 12 May 2014]

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!

I Liked It A lot, Get passed the animation....

[scotchmoe21 · 8/10 · 14 June 2014]

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

Not good

[r96sk · 6/10 · 30 June 2020]

A much, much more family friendly tale from the world of Quasimodo.

'The Hunchback of Notre Dame II' isn't necessarily anything terrible, I don't dislike it, but it kinda lets itself down with a tamer plot, poorer music/score and less interesting key characters.

The animation certainly takes a nosedive, with all the onscreen talent looking a little worse for wear. Tom Hulce remains solid as the main man, while Jennifer Love Hewitt is at least a big name to attach to the film; her role, Madellaine, is very underdeveloped. Michael McKean is, of course, notable too, but sadly his Sarousch is a very basic villain.

This film's plot is what lets it down, as they create an incredibly unimaginative story regarding a bell called La Fidèle. If that wasn't enough, the main plot point surrounding the bell is a total cop-out.

At least they only made the run time 68 minutes, which avoided me getting the drag feeling; any longer then I'd be rating way less. It's not good at all, but there are numerous other Disney animated sequels that are worse.

Both Walt and Victor are rolling in their graves.

[AntonFokker · 1/10 · 11 May 2014]

Before I explain why this movie is an torture device, I will tell my opinion about the first Hunchback of Notre Dame. The 1996 version of the classic book by Victor Hugo is known for being the darkest of the Disney movies, and is one of my favorite Disney movies of them all (note to self: Review the first Hunchback of Notre Dame).

Enough with the masterpiece of the original, let's talk about the sh***t piece of a STD (or DVS). Do you remember the dark story of the original, with elements as lust, genocide and religious taboo's? Just like Frollo, thy throw it of Notre Dame to his death and replace it for a cliché as hell love story from beginning to end. I have a hate to everyone who wanted that Quasimodo must have the girl at the end of the first movie. It is because of them that this sequel exist.

The plot of this movie is this. The people of Paris prepare for their favorite holiday, the festival of love (what happened to fest of fools, I don't know). Quasimodo wonders if he will get a girlfriend, and a circus comes to town under the leadership of the laziest villain ever (one that wands money instead of one that wands to commit an total genocide). He wants to steal a bell implanted with jewels (what makes the bell a useless thing) and Madeline, his assistant, must distract Quasimodo in order for the villain to steal the bell. I will not explain the rest of the plot, because you will find it out yourself by reading the previous lines of text.

The dark, fantastic animation of the first movie is now replaced with cheap sequel animation, that has to many bright colors , and looks worse than an animated cartoon from the 80s. Hanna Barbara looks like an anime movie in compare with this film. You can see the cheapness of the animation in the population of Paris, what is reduced to about 20 people. In a scene with 50 people on screen, more than 30 of them are painted on the background.

The music is just bland, boring and forgettable. The worst song was song by the gargoyles, what was overly happy, in a bad way.

The characters from the first movie are not what they were. Phoebus for example is an racist prick, and his son Zepher is more annoying than the gargoyles. The new characters are not worth mentioning, because their personalities are thinner than the paper they're drawn on.

Fans of the book by Victor Hugo will find out that the 1996 movie is not that bad in compare with this film. Fans of the original movie need to stay AS FAR AWAY AS POSSIBLE FROM THIS THING!!!!!.

To make it short: This movie is bad.

Ask not for whom the bells of Notre Dame toll...they toll for this!

[sngbrd39 · 26 January 2003]

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!)

He seemed to do fine without a lady-pal.

[sailorvortex · 3/10 · 17 January 2007]

I very rarely watch Disney sequels, because they usually pale in comparison to the original. However, I made the mistake of watching this movie. It was on Toon Disney, and I thought "Hey, maybe I'll like it."

Boy was I wrong. The animation was poorly done, at times making Quasimodo look more like the village idiot than the ugly-yet-lovable hero from the first movie. I also think they played too much on Hugo's crush on Djali, even going so far as to have Djali like him back!

I really and truly believe that this movie was only made in order to let fans of the original know that Quasi would find love away from Esmeralda, though it was unnecessary.

It wasn't all that bad

[classicx_attraction · 5/10 · 2 April 2008]

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.

Bland, demeaning and flat.

[Animany94 · 1/10 · 17 August 2017]

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.

An Atrocity that undermines the complexity of its predecessor

[shannonkellymcelroy · 2/10 · 31 December 2018]

1996's "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" is an underrated drama that focuses on the abuse of power and religious fanaticism that was common in The Hundred Year War and how they affected the less fortunate. Even better, the film delivered with its cast of complex characters that all carried their own weight in the story In this sequel, their concerns are all shifted to...... finding a date for the dance? While there are many sequels to Disney films, this seems to be the only one that doesn't even understand what made the first one great to begin with. What's even more confusing is the lack of any serious conflict that one would expect from The Middle Ages; especially when it was so well used the first time The worst thing about this sequel is that it ignores the fact that one of the most important points of the original is about Quasimodo learning to abandon Frollo's distorted teachings about the world, such as only caring for what he could get out of others instead of what he's supposed to give in return. The fact that Quasimodo is obsessed with finding a girlfriend should come off as a red flag, but it never does even when he immediately starts carving a figure of the girl who ran away from him after seeing him for the first time. Then when they do start dating, he tells her that there's more to her than her looks, but he never discloses what that is. It's like I can only assume he's saying anything he can to get her to stay and he's just lucky she's too naive to ask any follow up questions. The moral of the story is, never put all your hopes and dreams on the shoulders of one person, because both of you will inevitably get hurt and if you ever want a relationship to work, you both need to be on some understanding of what you need in life. Please don't let this movie tell you otherwise.

As Unwanted As The Hunchback When He Was Born

[natashabowiepinky · 4/10 · 29 December 2013]

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

Pretty cute for a sequel

[HotToastyRag · 6/10 · 5 June 2020]

Remember renting Pocahontas 2 and finding out Mel Gibson was too cool for school? Well, that's not the case in The Hunchback of Notre Dame 2: The Secret of the Bell. All three of the main leads (Tom Hulce, Demi Moore, and Kevin Kline) return and lend their voices to the sequel, and it's not bad!

Set six years after the end of the first movie, Esmerelda and Phoebus now have a family, and their little boy is voiced by Haley Joel Osment. There are no hard feelings, and Quasimodo is not only glad to see his friends so happily settled, but he also enjoys frequent outings in the outside world without getting ridiculed. And, since everyone was so sad to see him lose the girl in the first movie, he's given a new love interest! Jennifer Love Hewitt plays a newcomer to the city when the circus comes to town.

I've seen lots of cartoon sequels, and usually they're pretty bad. This is one of the better ones, so if you liked the original, support the cast (as they supported you by making the sequel) and rent it.

Just about one of the worst Disney video sequels you'll ever see

[MovieAddict2016 · 3/10 · 27 September 2005]

It's just shameful what Disney has resorted to recently. "The Hunchback of Notre Dame II" is one of these such atrocities. The animation is lazy and uninspired. The plot is insulting. The songs are just plain lame. The movie is marketed solely upon its stars rather than its quality.

Kevin Kline, Demi Moore, Jessica Love Hewitt, Jason Alexander and Haley Joel Osment (recorded when he was nine, released years later after he became famous) all sell out to the evil forces of Disney by lending their vocal talents to an uninspired mess in which the Hunchback of Notre Dame falls in love with a sweet girl, much to the chagrin of the Evil Bad Guy.

Yawn.

Look, Disney, we don't need any more of your lame-o "made for video" sequels. "Made for video" is synonymous for "crap." No one wants to watch crap so just go away.

Much less epic than it's predecessor, but almost as enjoyable.

[breale91 · 9/10 · 23 May 2011]

OK, I really don't get what everyone's problem is. This movie is what Disney is all about: cuteness, innocence, and teaching us that our dreams can come true! The first one was so scary, what with Hellfire and that scene where Frollo traps that family in their house and sets it on fire, so this time, now that Frollo has been destroyed, everyone is happy, and Quasimodo is an icon in Paris! And this time, he finds true love, Madellaine, and that certainly lightens the mood after that one part in part one. All in all, it may not have been the superior film like Terminator 2 Judgement Day was, but it's well worth your time if you need cheering up!

Slightly enjoyable at most

[iwatcheverything · 5/10 · 12 November 2003]

This film was kind of slow for a cartoon. It was of course really predictable and had many small problems. Some of the songs were not that good. I only counted 2 that were worth listening to. The animation was still good but that could not help the plot of the film any. I believe that this is Disney's way of trying to make more money off the success of the original film. In my crystal ball I see a sequal to Finding Nemo next but straight to video. Obviously people do go out and buy these sequels. I figure it is due to the fact that children are sometimes easily entertained. This one was a flop and I hope to not have to watch it again.

Short, sweet and lovely. Unfortunately for Walt Disney Television Animation, I'm talking about Jennifer Love Hewitt.

[Victor Field · 26 January 2003]

"Walt Disney Television Animation"? Yes, well, like most of their (ill-advised) made-for-video sequels, "The Hunchback of Notre Dame II" was produced by Walt Disney's TV cartoon division; the most glaring difference between their cinematic animation and their small-screen animation comes from one look at "Tarzan" and the subsequent TV series, but this here movie is still a disgrace - both for purists (note that the credits don't mention Victor Hugo) and for those of us who liked the 1996 movie, which is in fact one of the House of Mouse's better 1990s efforts.

The 1996 movie is one of the House of Mouse's better 1990s efforts because it had a stronger story and better characterisation than some of the ones that came before it, although Alan Menken and Stephen Schwartz weren't operating at the height of their powers ("The Bells Of Notre Dame" and "Topsy Turvy" excepted). Neither of them were involved with this followup, and the songs are the first problem with the movie; they feel like they were put in to expand the running time - still titchy at a mere 63 minutes. Too bad the script couldn't have been developed properly; they might not have needed to pad it. (Carl Johnson's score is better, though not up to his work on "Gargoyles." Then again, most Walt Disney Television stuff isn't up to their work on "Gargoyles." But I digress.)

The storyline has the happier Quasimodo, Phoebus and Esmeralda (now married with a son called Zephyr [voiced, for some reason, by Haley Joel Osment] - pause for purists to choke on whatever they're eating) getting ready for Le Festival d'Amour, which the H of ND is unlikely to celebrate, he being single. Enter a circus and the ringmaster's lovely assistant Madellaine, who nurtures an interest in our hunched hero... except that the magician is behind it. And the story is as tedious in its predictability as the animation is just tedious, making the waste of the voice cast all the more regrettable (all the main cast members from the movie return [barring the late Mary Wickes - Jane Withers, who shared Laverne with Miss Wickes last time, assumes the role in its entirety this time], and Michael McKean gives the movie some real energy as the villain, a more charismatic magician than David Blaine if a less trustworthy one - "I'd kiss me," he says into his mirror, "but I might fall in love!")... Madellaine has a dream of being a tightrope walker, and I bet you can't guess what she finds herself doing in the course of the movie.

It's all such a complete waste; sometimes a mildly diverting waste, but a waste nonetheless - it pains me to say that Victor, Hugo and Laverne (a highpoint of the first movie) have the low point with the movie's most horrible musical number. But Jennifer Love Hewitt fans can enjoy her vocal performance as Madellaine, plus the song she sings over the closing titles; Kylie Minogue she isn't, fortunately for us all.

However, the fact that the copyright notice reads "2000" and not "2002" should tell you everything.