katwarrior123 I really liked this film at the age I am now (14... don't ask) but I remember as a child hating the end... only Goodtimes entertainment (SPOILERS) would end the film with the Toy Taker being a Teddy Bear named Mr. Cuddles. Only them! Of course at the age of 5 I hated quite a lot of films finding them too soft (you know, always ending with... good guy being human and bad guy being something like a tiger that can talk and stand on two-legs with big claws and teeth and you're like, "A human could never beat something with that kind of ferocity and weapons!") aka Toy Taker--- is beaten by a man riding a reindeer who also has a lasso-rope... P.S. the reindeer is tiny compared to the man...But other than that I did like the songs and general story line and, for it's time, the animation was actually pretty good! The real heart from the original stayed with it although it was...let's say... a little cheesy as most young children's cartoons (or more CGI) have turned out to be from this time.I could never quite understand why it was called 'Rudolph and the Island of Misfit Toys' because, really, the island and it's occupants had very little to do with the story. The Toy Taker was- quote from my mother- a little scary and gruesome for kids'.Er... let's see... at the time it was being competed with such brilliant classics as Thomas and the Magic Railroad and the Land Before Time VIII (8) The Big Freeze (DTV- Direct To Video) and other classics I have probably forgotten about but will kick myself later for forgetting to mention! But my over-all review was... GREAT! SUPER! STUPENDOUS! anything along those lines.

TheLittleSongbird The 1964 film is a timeless Christmas classic, something that the whole family can watch again and again and find something new every time. Beautiful to look at, with lovely music, a terrific voice cast and an engaging story and characters, it enthralled with me ever since I was little(I am 17 now)and I still love it now. I did think the 1998 movie was sweet and above average, but it isn't as good as the 1964 version. However, this movie perceived as a sequel to the 1964 film is a bit of a mess. It has its heart in the right place and has an interesting premise, but in terms of execution it was ultimately disappointing.Let's start with the few pros this movie had. It does mean well, and not completely heartless. It could very well be a decent movie for kids, if not for adults. I admit it, I liked this movie as a kid, but things have changed since. I really liked the idea of the story, about a Toy Taker taking toys and trying to spoil Christmas, and Rudolph trying to save the day. The incidental music was decent, if not particularly memorable.Unfortunately, as much as I wanted to like this movie, everything else ranged to poor to absolutely horrible. While I liked the idea of the story, it was executed horribly. It took a long time to get going, and there are parts in the middle half where next to nothing happens. Need I say that there are a lot of disconnected scenes that are seemingly irrelevant to the plot? Also there doesn't seem to be any connection to the 1964 movie other than the characters' names. The dialogue wasn't any better, a vast majority of it was most uninspiring and entirely forgettable. And there are more clichés in the script alone than you can count.Another con was the animation. I just want to say that I don't think the computer animation is quite as bad as it was in Doogal, which for me is an absolute disgrace of an animated film anyway, despite the exceptional cast. However, that isn't saying much. The character movement is very robotic, the camera work is disappointingly slow and the actual colours are extremely flat and dull. But I am in complete agreement with anybody who says the worst part was the songs. Almost all of them were absolutely horrible. Some truly plodding and unmemorable melodies and truly crass lyrics. The only song I came close to liking was the Toy Taker's song; then again I tend to root for the villain's songs in movies.And what have I forgotten? Ah, yes the voice cast. Seriously there are some truly talented actors here, however they just couldn't do anything with the material they were given. I like Richard Dreyfuss, but his snowman narrator, in comparison to the brilliant Burl Ives who voiced him so wonderfully in the 1964 film, was boring and not benevolent enough. Kathaleen Barr as Rudolph... she is a talented voice actress, and acquitted herself well as the voice of Rudolph in the 1998 movie. But I felt as though it wasn't Kathaleen Barr here, her voice was I don't know... too bolshy here. And while I found Rudolph caring and genuinely cute in the 1964 and 1998 films, I am really sorry but I didn't care for him here. Jamie Lee Curtis; now she deserved better. Bad material and a close-to-embarrassing accent just doesn't cut it Jamie Lee. Garry Chalk does his best, but his Santa wasn't merry or cheery enough, John Goodman voiced him marvellously in the 1998 film. And then Rick Moranis, talk about disappointment. The Toy Taker was merely an okay villain, and great to look at. But vocally Moranis couldn't do anything at all with the character, and there wasn't enough of the character to fully develop properly.All in all, despite some redeeming qualities, this was really disappointing, with a very predictable ending might I add? See the 1964 cartoon instead, and you may like the 1998 film. By all means, see this movie if you like it, but I think those who didn't like this movie are fans of the 1964 cartoon and was expecting something new. Sadly that didn't happen. 4/10 Bethany Cox

The_Light_Triton Christmas is the worst time of year. kids whine if they don't get what they want for Christmas, "EC People" go to church for Christmas but don't really care about why Christmas is here in the first place, and Christmas themed programming infects the airwaves. every day you cannot go one minute without hearing jingle bells in a commercial or a bumper for "it's a wonderful life" or the original "Rudolph the red nosed reindeer." which are both great classics, but they air so much that you and your children can recite them line by line.So, Rankin/Bass responded and made a sequel 37 years after the original creation, dubbed "The Island of misfit toys." and for a TV movie, it's pretty good, with a stellar voice cast, and a somewhat of a reprisal of Kathleen Barr doing Rudolph's voice (she did Rudolph's voice in the version with the sprites of the northern lights, and don't get me going on that version because you'll think i'm either the angry video game nerd ranting about some mid-90s low quality SNES game.) Anyways, since Rudolph's original run back in the day, he lives a somewhat carefree life, with his deer-friend Clarice and his elf buddy Hermie. however, a mysterious creature called the toy taker, is, well, taking toys! so it's up to Rudolph to unmask the toy taker and of course, save the missing toys.I originally saw this a few years after it's debut, on YTV, and i gotta say i liked it, and i still think it's a half-decent sequel, i mean, it could've been worse...but thank god it's nothing like that one Rudolph the red nose reindeer from 1998. if you want true criticism, check out my review of that one.6 out of 10.

Joseph Brando While this special will never measure up to the beloved "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer" (can any special do that??) - it is fun to watch, especially if you are a fan of the original. Its nice to see all the characters from the Rankin/Bass classic come back and you can tell that whoever made this film paid a lot of attention to the original. This is much more than I can say for the other "Rudolph" film that came out a few years before this one or the abysmal "Frosty Returns"! The songs are hit-or-miss, some are pretty bad and some are quite good (for example the one that the Hippo sings). It also has a lot of heart and does capture the spirit of Romeo Mueller's heartwarming writing. The only major complaint I have is that this should really have been done in stop-motion puppet animation instead of cheap computer-animation which already looks dated only a few years after its release. I'm sure it would have garnered a much better response if it had been done in the same style of animation as its predecessor.