The Hunchback of Notre Dame II

This year marks the 30th anniversary of one of my all-time Disney movies, The Hunchback of Notre Dame. For its memorable characters, epic scale, dark content, themes relatable to kids and adults, light-hearted comedy, and incredible songs, the movie, though not as recognized as Beauty and the Beast (1991) or The Lion King (1994), is one of Disney's strongest. I've reviewed the film and ranked Frollo my 2nd-favorite Disney villain. So unfortunately, that leaves me with its infamous sequel to cover.

During Disney's straight-to-video sequel craze, the one film I'd least expect to receive a sequel was The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Like most Disney films, it didn't seem the story had any reason to continue. And given the film's gorgeous animation and intensely dark status, almost to the point where people can overlook the rest of the film's lighter qualities (except the gargoyles), how can a sequel designed for home video top it or capture the same spirit? Given its reputation and from the clips I've seen prior, it doesn't come close. However, as someone who's lived through Disney's sequel phase and saw most of them, though I caught the promos, as big a fan I was of the first movie, I had no interest in seeing its sequel. But knowing how despised this movie is, I was curious to take a look. And what better time to do it than for the original's 30th anniversary.

Set a few years after the first movie, Quasimodo, who has become an honorable citizen of Paris, feels lonely as the city prepares for a festival celebrating love, Le Jour d'Amour. A circus arrives, headed by the evil magician Sarousch, who plans to steal one of the bells of Notre Dame for containing a fortune of jewels. To help him carry out his planned theft, he sends his beautiful moll, Madellaine, whom he's cared for since she was an orphan, to use Quasimodo to find the bell and distract him while he takes it. The two fall in love, and you can easily predict where the story is going. There are no surprises whatsoever in this tale. They go through all the motions you can think of in a romance like this. Madellaine unhappily works for the villain and is at first repulsed by Quasimodo's appearance. Later on, she obeys her master's commands to seduce him, sees past his looks, and starts to fall for him. Of course, she feels guilty and tries to tell Quasi about Sarousch's scheme, but it is suddenly revealed to him that she had been using him, and they break up and mope. Eventually, Quasimodo makes up with her; they defeat Sarousch, and they live happily ever after. This is romance writing 101 that even a 4th grader could come up with. And the concept of this bell does not make a lick of sense at all. You see, the jewels are not outside of the bell; they're inside it. Get it? Because it looks ordinary on the outside and looks beautiful on the inside. Forget how ham-fisted this painfully obvious metaphor is; I have so many questions regarding this bell. What's the actual purpose of putting jewels inside it? How will the general public see the jewels? Do they need to take a special tour in Notre Dame? Is just flashing them as it rings for them to see it at the festival really worth placing all those priceless glittering treasures in a place where you can barely see them? Never mind how the bell somehow never rings like crap. Won't the bell's clapper damage these expensive jewels? Already, from the unoriginal romance to the film's confusing MacGuffin, this film sounds witless and uninteresting, and I'm just getting started. 

From the first image of the film, I was instantly repulsed by the animation. I understand that this is a movie made for home video, and it's not going to look as grand as the opening shot with the tower of Notre Dame above the clouds. But compared to the previous straight-to-video animated sequels, there was typically something to get excited about in the opening scene, before being let down. What we get here is birds flying over Paris toward Notre Dame, and it looks like an opening to a half-assed Disney TV show or special. You'd think Notre Dame would at least look better than Paris, but it only looks worse. It resembles a cardboard cut-out. Notre Dame in Quasimodo's handcrafted village looks better than this. And then we get the title reveal when the MacGuffin bell is shown from the inside, and even that looks underwhelming and hokey. As disappointing as the backgrounds appear, I had hoped the character designs and their movement, while still shoddy, would look better. Well, when Quasimodo appeared on the screen, he looked hideous. Oh, not his deformed face or hunched appearance; I mean, he looks to have no soul, for how lifelessly happy he appears. And from seeing how the other characters had unnatural reactions and movements that can be both stiff and rubbery, the animation didn't get any better. This film looks so ugly, right down to faded, worn-out colors that, along with a lousy story, were enough to make me wish someone would keep this film hidden and locked away as far from Notre Dame as possible. I actually take back my earlier claim that the film looks like a TV show, because that would somewhat be a compliment, since Disney had many impressive animated TV shows prior (Gargoyles stands as my favorite Disney animated show, which is better quality than this). The film looks cheap enough to be a mockbuster from an unknown studio that somehow was able to get away with using the characters' likeness. That's how low I set the bar for the film's animation, and a sequel to Hunchback, at the very least, does not deserve a lower-than-usual quality treatment when it comes to these Disney sequels. And it's ten times more insulting when this is known to be the last Disney direct-to-home video to use traditional cel animation. 

Maybe the reason the animation is one of Disney's worst is that they spent a ton of money bringing back the original cast. Aside from the passing of Mary Wickes (the gargoyle Laverne) and Mary Kay Bergman (the goat Djali), and Bob Bergen not reprising his role as Phoebus' horse Achilles, all the returning characters are voiced by their original voice actors. This cast includes Tom Hulce, Demi Moore, Kevin Kline, Jason Alexander, Charles Kimbrough, and Paul Kandel. If there is one thing I have to praise the film for, it is that the voice acting is not bad. Everyone does seem at home voicing their character. Even most of the new voice actors fit their roles. But a good cast like this can only go so far with such a painfully basic script, with some of the weakest dialogue you'll ever hear in these Disney sequels. 

Tom Hulce as Quasimodo is still sweet and awkward as the character, but that's about it. He does not offer the wide range of personality he did in the previous film, as most of it is reduced to just acting happy, sad, and mildly mad. He's already accepted in society, so there's nothing to feel bad for, except that he wants a girlfriend for a festival. To say it's not relatable would be cold, because a person can be content with their life and still wish for someone special to give a great part of their love to. And as paint-by-numbers the story is, perhaps Madellaine, who Jennifer Love Hewitt voices, can bring something charming to the role. She's sweet and awkward, and that's about it. There's nothing remotely interesting about her as a character. She acts what the plot tells her to do, hardly having any sense of agency as a character. Maybe if she started as a crook who loved swindling people, as cliched as a story like that is too, it would at least make her a little more engaging than what we have. But no, she's nothing more than a trophy for Quasimodo. An excuse to make those who complained about him not getting the woman happy, the only reason this sequel exists outside of the obvious search for more money. The only time I thought they had any engaging chemistry was when they first met, as Quasi hides himself from her while she is delighted by this friendly, mysterious man in the shadows, only to gasp in horror at his face. Other than that, there's hardly anything remotely intriguing about their relationship, and it's a pity the only scene they do is during a rejection. 

The villain from the first film, Frollo, is considered by many one of the greatest Disney villains of all time. He was intimidating, vicious, and subtle in terms of personality. Used his corrupt power to brainwash people and commit genocide while burning down Paris. And despite his prejudices and evil deeds, he believes what he's doing is more than right; it's what the lord intends. Frollo was not your typical after-school special, silly, warmongering villain full of greed and hate, like Ratcliffe from Pocahontas. He was a darker, more mature villain whose character, use of power, and hatred felt real and frightfully timeless. A villain who gets only scarier the older one gets. To come up with a villain in a sequel to either equal or top him sounds like an impossible task. And would you know it, the only way Disney could go from there is down, and I mean at the very bottom. As if you couldn't already guess by his grand evil scheme, Sarousch is nothing more than your average thief. The closest thing he ever shares with Frollo is how he brainwashed Madellaine from childhood, but it's more for exposition than for a compelling relationship between the two. Is there anything about him that ties into any themes? He's very vain about his good looks, which is nothing new since Disney already did that intelligently with the villain Gaston in Beauty and the Beast. Here, this fiend's vanity is as on the nose and over the top as the bell having hidden jewels; that is not funny, nor frightful. Maybe if they make him magically powerful, that could amount to something, and the film does demonstrate that he's good at creating illusions. And yet in other scenes, he does the impossible by making balls appear in thin air, and somehow makes a giant bell disappear in old Notre Dame. The film establishes he's a magician who uses parlor tricks, and somehow, he can do marvelous things when the film tells him to. So, what we get is a villain who is both too grounded and oddly too powerful, and neither one makes him a force to be reckoned with. There's nothing at all threatening about this character, nor did I get a strong sense of danger out of him. I was hoping, at the very least, that Michael McKean would deliver a performance as entertaining as that of the late, great Tim Curry in a poorly written villain role. As a Spinal Tap fan, as awful as the villain is written and designed, to hear McKean use the same voice as he did for David St. Hubbins could be a riot. But instead, he sounds like Jafar, only sillier and more flamboyant, and he's neither amusing nor does he sound remotely intimidating. He does not get a villain song either, which I know won't be on the same level as Hellfire; still, hearing McKean sing a sinister, bouncing song could give the film something memorable. But then again, if McKean can't leave an impression (like the rest of the cast) despite his efforts, then perhaps it was wise to spare him a most likely poorly written and tacked-on villain song. 

In the first movie, the songs (aside from the end credits song) were all memorable, and looked grand. Given the horrendous visual animation, they are not striking sequences to look at. The first song of the film, for instance, which is supposed to be a big musical number like Topsy Turvy, appears empty, with very few people dancing. And the second song Quasimodo sings tries to impress with its visuals, like Out There in the original, but the sense of awe feels forced rather than organic. It's almost as if the team who storyboarded this number just threw in any basic and cliched symbolism or image an "I want" musical scene should have and act like it's clever with deeper meanings, only to feel as pretentious as the dumb bell with jewels. As for the songs themselves, they're dull, underwhelming, uninspiring, and hard to sit through. Songs like Le Jour D'Amour, An Ordinary Miracle, and the end credits song I'm Gonna Love You are so boringly bland that I found myself forgetting them as soon as they're over, as if there was no musical scene ever happening. Quasimodo and a kid get a duet song entitled I'd Stick with You, and it's as irritatingly corny as you'd think. Fortunately, the song is short, pauses for dialogue within its two-minute runtime, and is easy to forget. There was a song that almost won me over. Not because it was good, but because it almost didn't bore or annoy me like the others, entitled Fa la la la Fallen In Love. It started as bad as I thought it would be, with the gargoyles comically crying over losing Quasimodo to a woman, serving as a dollar-store version of Timon and Pumbaa's verses and the comedy of Can You Feel the Love Tonight from The Lion King. But then, when the song reaches its chorus, it becomes bouncy, and I start to have a good time, regardless of the song's quality. And then any amusement I had is spoiled when the people in Paris start singing it, as the song now becomes overly sentimental to the point where its corniness gets aggravating, almost sounding like a parody of a Disney song instead of an actual one. And what's worse, it's as short as I'd Stick with You, and somehow feels longer than two minutes. 

Still to this day, I haven't joined the hate train towards the gargoyles. I understand why people would have a strong disconnect towards them, but I'm one of the few who think they're fine. I still find myself laughing at some of their bits. Given how grim and intense the first film can get, I thought they were a nice comic relief from the dark stuff. And I love how supportive and, at times, gentle they are toward Quasimodo. They can be much at times, sure, but I was never at all bothered by them. In the sequel, I find them as unfunny as people did in the original, but it's not entirely on them. Supporting comical characters that people will say were a better fit to the first film's tone than the gargoyles, like Djali and the Romani entertainer Clopin, are just as dull, having cheap humor to work with, as the gargoyles. The closest I ever laughed was at Achilles for counting the times Phoebus was wrong, but it failed to make me do so because of its pacing. I was stone-faced throughout the film, with not so much as a chuckle to be had, whereas in the original I can think of plenty of visuals and lines that work. I'll give the bad humor this: at least it was so unamusing that it wasn't offensively bad enough to make me cringe when I think back to it. That is, except when the gargoyle Hugo, who is madly in love with the goat and a character we're supposed to like, straight up sexually assaults the animal. But other than that, the humor is harmlessly bland. The only other thing about the gargoyles that annoys people more in this film is that it's made clear they're actually alive, since Madellaine can see them too, and they help save the day. Kind of like how Djali was able to see them, and that they help save the day in the original as well. I know the intention was to make them part of Quasimodo's imagination in the prior film, but in execution, there's plenty of visual evidence that works against this concept. It's hard to get mad at a sequel claiming that these characters are officially alive, when the first film already proved it, even if it wasn't the intention. 

Esmeralda and Phoebus return, along with a son named Zephyr, voiced by Haley Joel Osment (and yet somehow, the group of kids from the first movie hasn't aged in the slightest). Knowing how good of an actor Haley Joel Osment is, this role does not demonstrate his talents for how obnoxiously loud and cutesy he is, coming across as shallow, which is how the character is written, so I can't fault him too much. And I will give credit where it's due: Zephyr and Quasimodo have better chemistry than the film's actual love story. Not to imply it's good, but I do buy into their uncle-and-nephew-like relationship more. How the film works in Esmeralda and Phoebus into the story is as poorly handled as everything else in the movie. Remember how Esmeralda was a gentle yet tough character who would fight against injustices in the first film; here, they give her so little to do that her involvement in the plot would make no difference at all. She spends most of the film arguing against her husband Phoebus, who now suddenly has a prejudice against circus performers. Yeah, apparently the one soldier in Frollo's crew who did not hate or judge the Romani people in the slightest, saw past their stereotypes, questioned Frollo's goal, was disgusted by his actions, and disobeyed orders to murder them, finds the circus performers suspiciously evil. I understand that there need to be flaws with him, but him hating a group of people should not be one of them. It is insultingly out of character for Phoebus to think this way. And the film constantly gaslights the audience into thinking that his seeing the good in Romanis in the previous film was an arc he went through. But Phoebus never had an arc regarding him overcoming any prejudices towards Romanis at all. He saw them as people from the very start; he didn't have to rethink his perception of them. And yet still, Esmeralda at one point reminds him to look at a group of people again, like he did with her. The only main character she helped see through the propaganda against Romanis was Quasimodo; shouldn't this reminder go to him, especially when it's about his love interest? Phoebus argues that the Romanis weren't guilty of any crimes, and technically, he's wrong. The Romanis were, in fact, horribly oppressed by Frollo, but that did not mean there weren't some who had to lie, steal, and kill, even if it meant surviving; that's partly why they have a hidden nest under the city. To say the Romanis committed no crimes is completely false, especially when the original proves it through song, which demonstrates their complexities. The awful part about Phoebus's prejudices towards the circus people is that he was right about them committing thefts. His hatred is justified, a message that goes against everything that the first film was about! And the film dares to include a scene in which he apologizes to Esmeralda for his misjudgment. He may be wrong about Quasimodo's girlfriend not loving him, but everything else is on target. And frankly, as awful as everything I pointed out about the film, the fact that profiling and hate are what saves the day is more than insulting; it's worse than disgusting; it is harmful! And this being a kid's film and a sequel to one of the greatest animated films depicting the message of not judging people by their looks or stereotypes is evil, just downright evil! 

I knew this sequel was going to be bad, dumb, pointless, and a little boring going in. But I was not this prepared for how awful it actually is! The 2-D animation is so hideous and cheap-looking that it wouldn't even pass as a TV show. The songs are so passionless that I wonder why they were even written for the movie. The love story is boringly cliched that the makers are just hoping you'll stop crying over Quasimodo not getting a girlfriend. The villain is every downgrade you can imagine when following up the previous one. The original characters are dully simplified to the point where you think they were written by someone who just read a brief description of them from a Disney encyclopedia made for kids under 5 and based their personalities on how these characters were marketed in the promos. The symbolism and themes of deceiving appearances lack nuance. And the fact that the film assassinates its own message while pretending it didn't make my blood boil hotter than the fires of Hell. As terrible as most of these Disney sequels were, they offered a tiny something of quality or merit, whereas this sequel offers none. I have yet to see the other direct-to-home-video Disney sequels that people claim is worse than this, like Mulan II or Belle's Magical World, and as dreadful as they seem, I'd be amazed if they're actually worse than this movie. I'm not exaggerating when I say that the film is more than the worst Disney sequel I've ever seen by far. It's one of the worst films I've ever seen, in general, because it contains everything I could hate in a movie. It's boring, offensive, lazy, needless, soulless, annoying, dumb, misleading, ugly, mean, heavy-handed, and has no respect for its audience or the source material.