Disney's 1996 adaptation of Victor Hugo's novel The Hunchback of Notre Dame is for my money, one of the best films the studio has ever released. It's existence was a bit suspect, and it doesn't appeal to kids the same way other Disney films did in the day. But its spectacular animation, outstanding soundtrack, and a story with meaning and power brought to life with memorable characters, including what is perhaps one of the sickest, cruelest, and nastiest villains ever to grace an animated film, was brought together to what I consider to be the company’s misunderstood masterpiece.
Of course, while the film wasn’t the massive success the earlier Lion King was, it did make $325 million on a $70 million budget, which means it qualifies for the horrific direct-to-video sequels Disney released throughout most of the early-to-mid 2000s. While most of those were terrible, I got a hunch (pun not intended) that this perhaps not only the worst of them all, but perhaps the worst animated sequel ever made, and is up there with travesties like Highlander 2 and Batman and Robin as one of the most disastrously bad sequels ever.
More over, it’s mere existence is one to bring up to question as well, why give The Hunchback of Notre Dame the sequel? I felt the movie ended pretty definitively, Frollo was defeated, Quasimodo was accepted by the people of Paris, Esmeralda and Phoebus got together and everyone lived happily ever after. Then again, this argument could be made for any of the direct-to-video travesties (and they’re all terrible, with the possible exception of Aladdin and the King of Thieves), Disney movies by their nature, end happily, it’s just how they’re written. They’re nothing wrong with that, but it’s obvious that almost none of the films lend themselves for sequels, prequels, or midquels with MST3K-esque interludes (oh yes, that did happen, watch The Lion King 1 1/2). But all of the movies that had to pick for the direct-to-video sequel treatment, why pick the one that’s considered one of the darkest films in the company’s canon? Why make a family friendly sequel to a movie where the villain’s song was about how he’s lusting over the main female character and wants to damn her to hell (no, really, it’s awesome)? More then that, what possible dangling threads could they possibly tie up with this movie?
Oh, but there is, the “unconventional” moment of the film’s ending. The fact that the main character doesn’t get the girl at the end, the fact that Mr. Super Hunkey Dorey got the girl, and some people felt that Quasimodo got shafted at the end. I, for one, felt it was a nice departure from the typical Disney norm, and felt very Han Solo/Princess Leia ala The Empire Strikes Back. Also, Quasimodo was happy just to be accepted by the people, who realized that true beauty is in the soul, not the body. As sappy as that sounds, it was touching and felt meaningful. So, essentially, the second’s existence is to fill that one part of the plot that some were not happy about, they might as well make the subtitle to the film “Quasimodo Gets Laid” in that case.
Anyway, let’s discuss the film’s “plot” (and I do use that term loosely). Taking roughly seven years after the first film, Quasimodo has living peacefully with the townspeople, Esmeralda and Phoebus now have a kid name Zephyr (who’s especially annoying I’ll tell you), and on this wonderful day is the festival of love, during this festival, Quasimodo starts to feel lonely, and wonders if someone could in fact, fall in love with him. On the other side of the fence is a circus of thieves, lead by the "Evil" Sarousch, who intends to steal the most precious bell of Notre Dame, La Fidèle, and his “lovely” assistant, Madellaine, to seduce Quasimodo to steal the bell, but as the two meet, they begin to fall in love, and it’s up to them to stop the “evil” Sarousch.
So yes, the film is essentially a repeat of the first films morale of true beauty is in the inside. But where the original did it with a sense of grace and it’s richly brought to life characters and visuals. This one does it with such a ham-fisted approach, it feel like I’m being bashed in the head with a baseball bat, with a nail in it. There’s just no grace or subtly to it, even kids will think this is overly sappy.
Of course that’s not the only thing that is completely botched up, they somehow got the entire original voice cast to reprise their roles, but it’s fairly obvious that they are completely uninterested in what is happening, the voice acting feels phoned in, and Haley Joel Osment, who’s a really excellent actor, was degraded to an annoying child star in this with the role of Zephyr. It’s really frustrating to see these characters, who were fleshed out and actual people in the first film, turned to one dimensional shells of what they once were. Jennifer Love Hewitt as Madellaine is a generic “spunky” female love interest, feeling shallow and uninteresting, lacking any of the spark or energy Esmeralda had in the original. Also the gargoyles, perhaps the only problem I had with the first film (the principle of the characters were not the problem, it’s that they were misused, and felt like a vain attempt to recapture the genius of Aladdin’s Genie), feel strangely at home with the film’s sappy and corny humor, but still come off as annoying.
Of course the tragic misuse of its cast falls pale in comparison to the film's villain, Sarousch. While the original film was notable for Frollo, a genocidal religious psycho who made the film twice as watchable as it already was. This guy... isn‘t. Sarousch is a Faye, flamboyant, narcissist who is so gay for himself, he has mirrors and pictures of himself all over his office. What’s his motive, to steal a bell, wow, that sounds threatening. His problem is that he isn’t threatening in the slightest, we have no reason to be concerned about this guy. I’m not kidding when I say I could kick this guys ass. Hell, I can name at least 20 lame villains better then this guy. He’s worse then the blue lips dude from Dungeons and Dragons, worse then John Travolta in dreadlocks in Battlefield Earth, worse then that loser butler from The Aristocats, worse then almost any villain you could possibly think of, it’s downright painful to watch him. We don’t hate him in the right context either, the best villains are the ones you love to hate, I just hate this guy. I mean look at him:
Ugh, we haven’t even gotten to the film’s gaudy production values. One thing people will immediately notice is how horrifically awful the animation is, even by direct-to-video standards this is inexcusable. Apparently, the people making this never heard of shading or lighting effects. Because of this, the animation looks completely flat, and there is no sense of depth or blending between the characters and environment, all the characters looks like they’re being glued to an existing background. Colors are washed out and boring, even The Lion King 2 has the courtesy to have a vibrant color palate. Character animation leaves a lot be desired, and it seems static. Finally, environments seem empty for some reason. I mean, compare the animation in this sequence from the first film:
Then compare it to the opening scene of the second one:
I know what you’re saying “Well, it’s direct to video, it’s budget is smaller, so what if it’s six years difference, you can’t expect a huge theatrical spectacle”, yes, that’s true, but at the very least, some form of remote quality is to be expected, I know 2D animated films that were made with a fraction of what was probably this film’s budget that look way more professional and of higher quality then this.
Of course this film is a musical, and has a grand total of four songs, and all of them are horrible. Not that anyone was expecting Alan Menken while watching this, but at least don’t make songs that are grating on the ear’s. Really, listen to the love song:
I think I’ll end it at that note.
I could go into further into detail about how it ruins all the great qualities of the first film, the fact that its plot is too far low key for its own good, its pitiful excuse for a climax, or how it has no right to exist. But that would be stating the obvious, the same way the first film took a nice spot in my top 20 favorite films of all time, this sequel takes a spot in my bottom 5, it is without a doubt one of the worst films I’ve ever seen, not since The Last Airbender have I been so offended at a film sucking at badly as this does. Giving it a 0 out of 10 would imply it is worthy of any numerical value, instead I shall give it a:
FINAL SCORE:
out of 10
0 comments:
Post a Comment