Bonnie O'Connor 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!

lisafordeay 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

TheLittleSongbird 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

classicx_attraction 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.