Cartoonreviews I know...I know. Compared to the original, this one is far less dark, the music isn't as good, and it has a less epic scope but.... I can't help it. I like this movie.If you couldn't guess from the title, this is definitely one of my guilty pleasure movies. I can't defend it from a technical aspect, but I actually really do enjoy this movie. The main reason I suppose is I got really mad in the first movie seeing as how the moral was 'look at the beauty inside' and then Esmeralda marries the cute guy. (Shrug) i don't know, that just always really bothered me. I actually did want Quasimodo to get a romantic interest, and I do actually like Madelin's character as well as Jennifer Love Hewitt voicing her. The villain was cheesy, the stakes weren't as high, but, I liked the romantic character development. I wasn't too huge of a fan of the child character Zephyr, but, then again I am sure not too many people were. The animation is nothing to write home about and like I said everything technical about it is not very good. But...it still left me with a happy feeling and I enjoyed it and have watched it multiple times. I can understand people who don't like it solely based on how different the tone is from the first, but you gotta give em credit, they got back pretty much all the voice actors. That's gotta count for something. Still though, I know a lot of people didn't..but I really liked it. Chalk it up to a guilty pleasure.

Anthony Paolino 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!

jwvongoethe1800 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.

sailorvortex 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.