This is one of the earlier rip offs I watched on Amazon Prime. I barely made it through with literally 2 minutes left. It was extremely hard to sit through with its AWFUL pace, awful animation, awful music, and annoying voices by good actors. The movie is I think 40 minutes but it felt like hours as the first 10 minutes was dedicated to the rats saying how good the food is, literally leaving me believing that the characters will NOT leave the restaurant, which is extremely lazy and boring. I can't remember the story because that's how short my attention span was. This movie should not be seen by anyone, as just the way it looks is enough for children to want to tear your eyes out. Ratatouille is much more lovable, friendly, easy on the eyes, and wonderful.
Reviews
14 Reviews
Cinderella
(1994 Video)
A lazy version...
8 October 2019
Warning: Spoilers
With Cinderella being a public domain fairytale, any animation studio could pull off their own version of Cinderella. Jetlag did some fairytale movies. This Cinderella is, like both Disney (1950 and 2015) and Rodger and Hammerstein's, is based off Charles Perrault. Cinderella has always been a hit and miss, but I still am entertained by some of the movies. Jetlag's though...not very much unfortunately.
I'm 23 years old, and I'm aware this is mostly meant for children, but something about this movie irritates me. One of the biggest problems in the movie are the characters. All of the characters are boring, annoying, or stupid. In addition, they almost lack personality, including Cinderella. I can appreciate Cinderella in the Disney version(s) because even though she is constantly pushed around and bullied by her step-family, she is confident and determined that someday her life will change. Jetlag Cinderella is just too boring and she doesn't do much to help us try to feel sorry for her. Despite her father only appearing like 3 times in the movie, the narrator says that her father is unaware of the way the family mistreats her. He is supposedly gone throughout the majority of the movie, so I'm not sure if he is unaware BECAUSE he is not there. It sounds almost as if he WAS there at some point but the narrator worded it confusingly. The Prince is probably the worst of them all. Disney's Prince didn't have much of a personality either, so he not off the hook (I would count Cinderella III: A Twist in Time but it probably wouldn't be fair since Jetlag doesn't have sequels). The Prince does talk more, but what he says is not always nice. He ignores a woman who is talking to him (who to be fair was not even a bad person), he rudely leaves her, and shouts at his parents that he will not marry someone he will love. I don't know of we're supposed to like Prince A** or not but he is an a**. At the ball, he pretty much just ignores all the women because they are not pretty enough for him pretty much (like the Disney version too...but that's the story). He barely speaks to Cinderella when he sees her and dance in literal circles making my eyes hurt...The rest of the story is pretty obvious so I won't explain it. Oh yea the Prince never asked her name...Oopsy!!!
And then there's not just the personality, but it's also the way the characters look. Disney ('50s) is kind of guilty for this too (well maybe it's not as bad as Jetlag) because basically they imply that ugly women (the stepsisters and stepmother) are wicked and evil, while beautiful people have pure hearts. That's not a good message for the kids. Looks does not define personality.
There are songs in the movie, but to honest I hated them. The only reason I remember is because they were rubbed in my face like how Mamma Mia rubbed its cheesy (yet catchy) songs in my face.
I always did find the whole "try shoe on women to find the woman I danced with at the ball", because...you know, people share shoe sizes...except for that particular kingdom. It was never implied whether or not the Fairy Godmother's magic is responsible for Cinderella not easily being recognized at the ball (even though she CLEARLY LOOKED LIKE HER), so it kind of makes the Prince look like a moron...because you know, his face was centimeters from hers. But he somehow knew it was her when he heard her singing in her home BEFORE he actually saw her (sighs).
This is not a terrible little cartoon, but it's not really good either. If anything, it's a lazy version of Cinderella. I guess it's fine if you want to keep your children still for under an hour, but I wouldn't count on whatever message it's trying to send. I personally would just stick with the three Disney versions. They are not perfect, but I think they are better.
I'm 23 years old, and I'm aware this is mostly meant for children, but something about this movie irritates me. One of the biggest problems in the movie are the characters. All of the characters are boring, annoying, or stupid. In addition, they almost lack personality, including Cinderella. I can appreciate Cinderella in the Disney version(s) because even though she is constantly pushed around and bullied by her step-family, she is confident and determined that someday her life will change. Jetlag Cinderella is just too boring and she doesn't do much to help us try to feel sorry for her. Despite her father only appearing like 3 times in the movie, the narrator says that her father is unaware of the way the family mistreats her. He is supposedly gone throughout the majority of the movie, so I'm not sure if he is unaware BECAUSE he is not there. It sounds almost as if he WAS there at some point but the narrator worded it confusingly. The Prince is probably the worst of them all. Disney's Prince didn't have much of a personality either, so he not off the hook (I would count Cinderella III: A Twist in Time but it probably wouldn't be fair since Jetlag doesn't have sequels). The Prince does talk more, but what he says is not always nice. He ignores a woman who is talking to him (who to be fair was not even a bad person), he rudely leaves her, and shouts at his parents that he will not marry someone he will love. I don't know of we're supposed to like Prince A** or not but he is an a**. At the ball, he pretty much just ignores all the women because they are not pretty enough for him pretty much (like the Disney version too...but that's the story). He barely speaks to Cinderella when he sees her and dance in literal circles making my eyes hurt...The rest of the story is pretty obvious so I won't explain it. Oh yea the Prince never asked her name...Oopsy!!!
And then there's not just the personality, but it's also the way the characters look. Disney ('50s) is kind of guilty for this too (well maybe it's not as bad as Jetlag) because basically they imply that ugly women (the stepsisters and stepmother) are wicked and evil, while beautiful people have pure hearts. That's not a good message for the kids. Looks does not define personality.
There are songs in the movie, but to honest I hated them. The only reason I remember is because they were rubbed in my face like how Mamma Mia rubbed its cheesy (yet catchy) songs in my face.
I always did find the whole "try shoe on women to find the woman I danced with at the ball", because...you know, people share shoe sizes...except for that particular kingdom. It was never implied whether or not the Fairy Godmother's magic is responsible for Cinderella not easily being recognized at the ball (even though she CLEARLY LOOKED LIKE HER), so it kind of makes the Prince look like a moron...because you know, his face was centimeters from hers. But he somehow knew it was her when he heard her singing in her home BEFORE he actually saw her (sighs).
This is not a terrible little cartoon, but it's not really good either. If anything, it's a lazy version of Cinderella. I guess it's fine if you want to keep your children still for under an hour, but I wouldn't count on whatever message it's trying to send. I personally would just stick with the three Disney versions. They are not perfect, but I think they are better.
An Incredibly Realistic Atmosphere
8 October 2019
I have been watching exploitation movies since I was approaching adulthood (about 17 years) and at first I thought I seen it all (not literally). When I started taking more advantage of my Amazon Prime Video, I found this movie and placed it in my watchlist, but did not actually watch it until about a month ago (currently 23 years). This is based on real life serial killers Henry Lee Locus and Otis Toole. Locus claimed to have killed 3,000+ people, when he was only committed for 7. The director uses Locus's claims to take viewers into the mind of very messed human beings.
The first few women showed murdered already set the tone for the movie, that we most likely will be multiple people throughout the movie either killed or being killed. Ironically, the movie did not show a whole lot of killing, but the killings they did show was convincing enough for us to see that these guys are incredibly creative in their murders. This movie was released during the Slasher Era of the 1980s. This movie seemed like a slasher in a way, but not the same as slashers we all are familiar.
This movie takes its violence to a new level of real-life insanity. The men in the movie are real, that chilling feeling I get when just watching those two (even if they are NOT killing) are real, their personalities are real, and the killings felt very real. But what makes it more messed up is that there are people out in the world who are exactly like these men. They kill and kill and kill without any real purpose but because they love to kill. Killing is like an addicted pleasure, like Henry HAS to kill every single day/night, but there is no actual reason behind it.
The 2 actors did a phenomenal job at portraying the killers based on their own personalities. Henry is portrayed as a creepy but chill man. Despite his killings of mostly women, I felt like I was being fooled when witnessing his strange respect for Ottis's sister, Becky, who seems like the complete opposite of her brother, who is portrayed as an uneducated, immature moron. When putting two together, a real life monster is created.
Despite holding facial expressions of shock and terror, I did find this movie to be very good. The director accomplished his purpose of taking us into the minds of two deranged humans. It's definitely not your normal '80s serial killer based movie (because these are real people). In addition, the movie looks so good that I always forget this was released in 1986. It did indeed leave me feeling quite terrified and I carried my thoughts on the movie with me for quite a while. I am glad I finally got the chance to watch it. Anyone who checks this out should expect its dark atmosphere, its strong tension, its incredibly realistic violence, its emotional distress, and heavy psychological study. Be careful when going into this one, even if you are a horror fan.
The first few women showed murdered already set the tone for the movie, that we most likely will be multiple people throughout the movie either killed or being killed. Ironically, the movie did not show a whole lot of killing, but the killings they did show was convincing enough for us to see that these guys are incredibly creative in their murders. This movie was released during the Slasher Era of the 1980s. This movie seemed like a slasher in a way, but not the same as slashers we all are familiar.
This movie takes its violence to a new level of real-life insanity. The men in the movie are real, that chilling feeling I get when just watching those two (even if they are NOT killing) are real, their personalities are real, and the killings felt very real. But what makes it more messed up is that there are people out in the world who are exactly like these men. They kill and kill and kill without any real purpose but because they love to kill. Killing is like an addicted pleasure, like Henry HAS to kill every single day/night, but there is no actual reason behind it.
The 2 actors did a phenomenal job at portraying the killers based on their own personalities. Henry is portrayed as a creepy but chill man. Despite his killings of mostly women, I felt like I was being fooled when witnessing his strange respect for Ottis's sister, Becky, who seems like the complete opposite of her brother, who is portrayed as an uneducated, immature moron. When putting two together, a real life monster is created.
Despite holding facial expressions of shock and terror, I did find this movie to be very good. The director accomplished his purpose of taking us into the minds of two deranged humans. It's definitely not your normal '80s serial killer based movie (because these are real people). In addition, the movie looks so good that I always forget this was released in 1986. It did indeed leave me feeling quite terrified and I carried my thoughts on the movie with me for quite a while. I am glad I finally got the chance to watch it. Anyone who checks this out should expect its dark atmosphere, its strong tension, its incredibly realistic violence, its emotional distress, and heavy psychological study. Be careful when going into this one, even if you are a horror fan.
One of the hardest movies to sit through...
6 September 2019
I never heard of the elf bowling games until like last year, and I came from the 90s. The game clearly looks ridiculous and like nothing really happens, but it also looked kind of funny. Not technically something that would be made into a kids movie though...
I found it on Amazon Prime Video with it's glorious 1.7 glory rating, but I figured I'd check it out...not once but twice. Yes TWICE!!! The movie was so boring that I couldn't even stay awake during its hour and a half long duration. The plot is stupid (to be honest, I still never knew what the damn plot was), the pacing is annoyingly slow, and none of the characters are likeable. Not only are the characters unlikable and unfunny, but their stupidity gives me a HORRENDOUS headache. The villian of the movie, Dinkle, had been a sly fox for 1400 years, and when random stuff happens, NO ONE FOR SOME REASON THINKS "OH MAYBE IT'S DINKLE AGAIN!!" But that would make too much sense and the movie can't make sense because then it will be too short, AND WE CAN'T HAVE OUR MOVIE BE SHORT!!
This is a damn Christmas movie based on a deadass video game, but I literally forgot about the so called "elf bowling" plotline...(sigh). The animation is tolerable and not too insulting despite the characters looking like creepy early CGI models...wait what year this came out again? Meh I don't care. The voice acting is not terrible, but it IS annoying. Every character, except maybe Lex (the magic ball elf), sounds incredibly annoying. That's more of my personal nitpick because I've heard less annoying voices in Spongebob Squarepants...(I made the reference because Tom Kenny plays Dinkle...).
This is a kid's movie sure, but this is not something I would recommend parents to show their kids. Not only is the movie terrible, but it's also an insult to children's intelligence and it's very boring. I personally think this was made for money, because the creators did not care. I'd taken creepy stop-motion Christmas specials before this anyday.
Oh there's sex jokes somewhere in there too...
I found it on Amazon Prime Video with it's glorious 1.7 glory rating, but I figured I'd check it out...not once but twice. Yes TWICE!!! The movie was so boring that I couldn't even stay awake during its hour and a half long duration. The plot is stupid (to be honest, I still never knew what the damn plot was), the pacing is annoyingly slow, and none of the characters are likeable. Not only are the characters unlikable and unfunny, but their stupidity gives me a HORRENDOUS headache. The villian of the movie, Dinkle, had been a sly fox for 1400 years, and when random stuff happens, NO ONE FOR SOME REASON THINKS "OH MAYBE IT'S DINKLE AGAIN!!" But that would make too much sense and the movie can't make sense because then it will be too short, AND WE CAN'T HAVE OUR MOVIE BE SHORT!!
This is a damn Christmas movie based on a deadass video game, but I literally forgot about the so called "elf bowling" plotline...(sigh). The animation is tolerable and not too insulting despite the characters looking like creepy early CGI models...wait what year this came out again? Meh I don't care. The voice acting is not terrible, but it IS annoying. Every character, except maybe Lex (the magic ball elf), sounds incredibly annoying. That's more of my personal nitpick because I've heard less annoying voices in Spongebob Squarepants...(I made the reference because Tom Kenny plays Dinkle...).
This is a kid's movie sure, but this is not something I would recommend parents to show their kids. Not only is the movie terrible, but it's also an insult to children's intelligence and it's very boring. I personally think this was made for money, because the creators did not care. I'd taken creepy stop-motion Christmas specials before this anyday.
Oh there's sex jokes somewhere in there too...
In Search of the Titanic
(2004)
Ellipses...
20 June 2019
Judging the from the title and the animation shown on the cover pictures, it already screams "DON'T WATCH OR IT WILL NEVER GO AWAY!!" It is exactly like that. This was the hardest movie I ever sat through in my life. The movie has an awful story, bad animation, annoying characters, terrible Shark rap song, and it severely, and I mean SEVERELY lacks continuity of it's also awful predecessor, The Legend of the Titanic. An hour and 30 minutes is WAY TOO LONG for something truly awful. Avoid this disrespectful trash at all costs.
Bug Bites: An Ant's Life
(1998 Video)
This really does exist...
29 May 2019
I found this on Amazon Prime Video while searching for terrible under an hour "movies" to watch. At the time, I've seen a least several Sparkplug and Video Brinquedo RIP offs combined. But this thing here sets the bar INCREDIBLY low with 3D animation. The animation is horrendous, the characters are boring and ugly, the backgrounds are ugly and lazy, this "movie" is straight up garbage. I don't think a single person on the planet can confuse this for A Bug's Life or Antz.
A Car's Life: Sparky's Big Adventure
(2006 Video)
"I wish...I could be..."
18 May 2019
I still am debating what is the worst Cars RIP off. But there are so many of these that I can only go by what I watched. I watched Cargo, Little Cars, and A Car's Life...and I still do not know.
But this thing here...this thing was horrifying to watch, mostly because of the animation. The animation is one of the worst I ever seen. I heard this movie was made by one person, but that does not change the fact that my first frame-by-frame animation project (that took me 3 days to do) looks better than this. The characters are ugly and annoying, there is no story...everything is awful pretty much. And for some reason at the beginning of the movie, the annoying red car was about to flipping sing....saying "I wish...I could be...". You wish you could be what?! This movie can burn in hell.
But this thing here...this thing was horrifying to watch, mostly because of the animation. The animation is one of the worst I ever seen. I heard this movie was made by one person, but that does not change the fact that my first frame-by-frame animation project (that took me 3 days to do) looks better than this. The characters are ugly and annoying, there is no story...everything is awful pretty much. And for some reason at the beginning of the movie, the annoying red car was about to flipping sing....saying "I wish...I could be...". You wish you could be what?! This movie can burn in hell.
What's Up: Balloon to the Rescue!
(2009 Video)
Boring crap
18 May 2019
Another RIP off made by Video Brinquedo, this time from the Disney Pixar movie "Up." This movie is so terrible that there's not much to even say about it. The animation is awful, the sound editing is bad, the characters are either annoying, boring, or useless, there is no real plot, and it's offensive. The movie is just about the scientists and some kid and girl, whose names I can't remember because who gives a damn, who travel somewhere(s) to retrieve monsters while a French Amazon adventurer tries to take over the world with a rock. The only thing this movie copies from Up is the flying house. I know one thing, while Up had a lot of emotion and action put in it, this garbage lacks both those. The pacing is way too slow because it seems like everyone does more talking than anything. In addition, this movie seems to have some dislike towards Asian people as they made the Chinese character very offensive to any Asian viewers. Why? I do not know but it is extremely unnecessary. The company must be on meth if they think people will not spot these stereotypes, along with their glitches in animation. Same for the French character. This trash shall never be compared to Up. Do not watch this.
A princesa e o sapo
(2009 Video)
Not worth it
15 May 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I'm assuming this is a RIP off of Disney's "The Princess and the Frog", which is also the first mainstream Disney movie in years to have the classic 2D animation style, and also to feature the first black princess from no place other than my hometown of New Orleans!!
I watched this on Tubi some time ago...and I hate it a lot. This movie had a terrible portrayal of a black princess. She's portrayed as a spoiled rotten brat who is never satisfied by anything. She has to marry but turns down every man because they are fake, normal (whatever that even means), and unattractive. She wants her man to be a prince charming. The audience sits through almost 50 minutes of a frog NOT telling the princess that he really is a prince that needs to be kissed to be turned back to normal. The movie would be probably 45 minutes shorter...but then it wouldn't be a movie, it would just be pointless trash.
The animation is very strange to look at. While it is terrible, whenever there are scenes where the Princess is walking, I can not help but really look disgusted by it. In addition, the characters blend terribly with the background. The characters are flat drawn characters but also smooth, while the background is super rough and full of thickness.
There's some boring music in the background, but it's boringness matches the film pretty closely.
The pacing is extremely slow. Because the frog and the princess bicker and complain back in forth in one room (there's like only 3 actual backgrounds in the movie), it carries on for WAY TOO LONG. There's almost 50 minutes of this movie and probably 40 minutes of it is dedicated to annoying characters not shutting up about annoying things. It felt like it was 3 hours rather than 50 minutes.
The characters are unlikable. Not only are they boring and have no good qualities, but they are also pretty messy. The Princess is especially fitting to the "messy" title. She is a pretty heartless moron who cares about no one about herself and how people look. In addition, she insults everyone and everything she comes across. The frog points out her flaws a lot but she gets angry everytime (I know, I'm surprised I sided with the frog too...he still sucks tho). Even the Prime Minster that's seen later in the story is a constant sexist trash talker. The King needed to be doing some serious ass whooping on her trash mouth.
This movie is one of Video Brinquedos worst I've seen (tying with Rattatoing), but then again what movies did they make that's ACTUALLY good? Nothing...nothing they make is good...or even ok. Like other RIP off movies, they cash in on the popular movie so they can trick people into buying the wrong copy. Personally I think anyone can see that this movie is NOT The Princess and the Frog. I do not know if this movie is meant for kids, but this is also something I would not recommend parents showing their kids, even if it is to keep them quiet. This movie is boring, the characters are unlikable, the animation is one of the worst I've ever seen, and there is no message at all. Even though the frog is kissed and turned back into human, nothing was learned from the princess because in the end he was "still good-looking." The Princess and the Frog is a much more heartfelt movie with likeable and relatable characters, better animation, catchy music, an adventurous story, and a good moral. The Frog Prince is not worth the 50 minutes.
I watched this on Tubi some time ago...and I hate it a lot. This movie had a terrible portrayal of a black princess. She's portrayed as a spoiled rotten brat who is never satisfied by anything. She has to marry but turns down every man because they are fake, normal (whatever that even means), and unattractive. She wants her man to be a prince charming. The audience sits through almost 50 minutes of a frog NOT telling the princess that he really is a prince that needs to be kissed to be turned back to normal. The movie would be probably 45 minutes shorter...but then it wouldn't be a movie, it would just be pointless trash.
The animation is very strange to look at. While it is terrible, whenever there are scenes where the Princess is walking, I can not help but really look disgusted by it. In addition, the characters blend terribly with the background. The characters are flat drawn characters but also smooth, while the background is super rough and full of thickness.
There's some boring music in the background, but it's boringness matches the film pretty closely.
The pacing is extremely slow. Because the frog and the princess bicker and complain back in forth in one room (there's like only 3 actual backgrounds in the movie), it carries on for WAY TOO LONG. There's almost 50 minutes of this movie and probably 40 minutes of it is dedicated to annoying characters not shutting up about annoying things. It felt like it was 3 hours rather than 50 minutes.
The characters are unlikable. Not only are they boring and have no good qualities, but they are also pretty messy. The Princess is especially fitting to the "messy" title. She is a pretty heartless moron who cares about no one about herself and how people look. In addition, she insults everyone and everything she comes across. The frog points out her flaws a lot but she gets angry everytime (I know, I'm surprised I sided with the frog too...he still sucks tho). Even the Prime Minster that's seen later in the story is a constant sexist trash talker. The King needed to be doing some serious ass whooping on her trash mouth.
This movie is one of Video Brinquedos worst I've seen (tying with Rattatoing), but then again what movies did they make that's ACTUALLY good? Nothing...nothing they make is good...or even ok. Like other RIP off movies, they cash in on the popular movie so they can trick people into buying the wrong copy. Personally I think anyone can see that this movie is NOT The Princess and the Frog. I do not know if this movie is meant for kids, but this is also something I would not recommend parents showing their kids, even if it is to keep them quiet. This movie is boring, the characters are unlikable, the animation is one of the worst I've ever seen, and there is no message at all. Even though the frog is kissed and turned back into human, nothing was learned from the princess because in the end he was "still good-looking." The Princess and the Frog is a much more heartfelt movie with likeable and relatable characters, better animation, catchy music, an adventurous story, and a good moral. The Frog Prince is not worth the 50 minutes.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
(II) (1996 Video)
No...
15 May 2019
Warning: Spoilers
No. Just no. I was into watching rip off movies and I came across this one because the Disney version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame is one of my favorite animated movies of all time. It came out during my baby days and I stayed with my whole life because of good story, the incredible characters, the incredible songs and music, etc. I even watched many of the other adaptations, many of them being upsetting due to them being closer to the Victor Hugo novel. But it was still fun watching the other versions.
But this...this movie is trash. For one this, this movie is extremely disrespectful to the book. Nothing about this movie relates to the book at all. The characters are all trash. Melody (RIP off Esmerelda) is a lame as hell character who has talking musical instruments following her around for some damn reason. The instruments and Melody have more damn lines than the rest of the characters combined because the movie is always cutting to them!! There's bats in the bell tower that never move from their spot, the scene never changes as it is always daylight in their background despite some scenes being nighttime (that's exactly how I explained it), and their jokes...my God their jokes are AWFUL!!!! Pierre is nothing like the character from the book, looks like something you'd see as a cookie brand mascot. Jean Claude (Frollo/Gaston rip off) is literally constant screaming Gaston. And Quasimodo is the lamest damn title character I have ever seen. Because he's so lame, I forgot many times he was in the movie. In addition, Quasimodo does not even look ugly. He looks like he is part of flipping One Direction or the Jonas Brothers...the animators worked "hard" to make the supposed ugly on the outside character, handsome on the outside. So the villagers look even more ass because they are freaked out just by him having a hump...There's probably more characters but who cares they all suck too.
There's about 3 songs in the movie. Long story short, they are all garbage.
The animation is pretty awful as well. I've seen bad animated movies that looked rushed and/or weren't trying. This movie has both of those. There were plenty of obvious errors that could be seen by anyone whether they are EVEN looking for the errors or not. The animation is pretty very sloppy and choppy. The character lip syncs are always very off. Some characters talk without opening their mouths. There are many scenes where the animation randomly cuts right in your face (like an arm is there then it's not in a couple of frames), and it looks awkward and bad. Most notably and the most obvious, the resuing of animation. The same animation was used (starting from that ass of a song at the beginning of the movie to the end) was used at least 4 or 5 times throughout the movie!!
Then there's the story. There is no story. There's just some obvious Gaston-looking ass villian complaining about people illegal dancing and playing music in Paris and he keeps going after Melody. She escapes to the church and quickly hit it off with fake Quasimodo. Then later she is kidnapped and about to be executed but Quasimodo saves her from execution. Then suddenly he becomes handsome...as in his hair moves out his face and his back is straightened handsome. Melody supposedly has magic that makes inanimate things come to life but it is never explained so it makes no sense. The story is extremely disrespectful to the book and pretty much to the other adaptations. While they all weren't the same, they still were able to make the point that ugliness on the outside does not define how one is on the inside. This movie way off that moral. Quasimodo is only considered ugly because of his back, but is in general, a handsome character. Makes no sense because that means the characters hate and fear him for what could be considered a disability (I know 14th-15th century setting but still...this guy is called a "monster"). But the ending when he suddenly became even more handsome out of nowhere and Melody says "You look so handsome," that was incredibly baffling and made me extremely angry. Golden Films wanted to get this out the same time as the Disney movie, but even Disney knew the story they were adapting from. All Golden Films knew is that there is a deformed (might be an overstatement since their character is NOT DEFORMED) bellringer in the bell tower of Notre Dame, kept from the outside world because of his looks. That's all there is in the movie. There's nothing of who Quasimodo's "parent(s)" are, there has never been a priest seen in the movie, there is no Phoebus, there is no...dark, mature scenes, there's nothing that makes this movie relatable to the book...or even to anyone in general.
I get these movies were made for kids, but to be honest I would not let any children watch this film. The animation sloppy, the characters are either annoying, boring, or unlikable (or all of the above), the music is too annoying, and there is no message at all. Everything that happened the last few minutes was so terribly put together that finding out what the moral is is not likely. I would not waste time making sense of anything in this movie because if will never make actual sense. The Disney version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a way better movie to watch. Yes it's darker and more mature, but so is the book, and I appreciate Disney for putting together what I think is one of greatest 2D animated films of all time.
But this...this movie is trash. For one this, this movie is extremely disrespectful to the book. Nothing about this movie relates to the book at all. The characters are all trash. Melody (RIP off Esmerelda) is a lame as hell character who has talking musical instruments following her around for some damn reason. The instruments and Melody have more damn lines than the rest of the characters combined because the movie is always cutting to them!! There's bats in the bell tower that never move from their spot, the scene never changes as it is always daylight in their background despite some scenes being nighttime (that's exactly how I explained it), and their jokes...my God their jokes are AWFUL!!!! Pierre is nothing like the character from the book, looks like something you'd see as a cookie brand mascot. Jean Claude (Frollo/Gaston rip off) is literally constant screaming Gaston. And Quasimodo is the lamest damn title character I have ever seen. Because he's so lame, I forgot many times he was in the movie. In addition, Quasimodo does not even look ugly. He looks like he is part of flipping One Direction or the Jonas Brothers...the animators worked "hard" to make the supposed ugly on the outside character, handsome on the outside. So the villagers look even more ass because they are freaked out just by him having a hump...There's probably more characters but who cares they all suck too.
There's about 3 songs in the movie. Long story short, they are all garbage.
The animation is pretty awful as well. I've seen bad animated movies that looked rushed and/or weren't trying. This movie has both of those. There were plenty of obvious errors that could be seen by anyone whether they are EVEN looking for the errors or not. The animation is pretty very sloppy and choppy. The character lip syncs are always very off. Some characters talk without opening their mouths. There are many scenes where the animation randomly cuts right in your face (like an arm is there then it's not in a couple of frames), and it looks awkward and bad. Most notably and the most obvious, the resuing of animation. The same animation was used (starting from that ass of a song at the beginning of the movie to the end) was used at least 4 or 5 times throughout the movie!!
Then there's the story. There is no story. There's just some obvious Gaston-looking ass villian complaining about people illegal dancing and playing music in Paris and he keeps going after Melody. She escapes to the church and quickly hit it off with fake Quasimodo. Then later she is kidnapped and about to be executed but Quasimodo saves her from execution. Then suddenly he becomes handsome...as in his hair moves out his face and his back is straightened handsome. Melody supposedly has magic that makes inanimate things come to life but it is never explained so it makes no sense. The story is extremely disrespectful to the book and pretty much to the other adaptations. While they all weren't the same, they still were able to make the point that ugliness on the outside does not define how one is on the inside. This movie way off that moral. Quasimodo is only considered ugly because of his back, but is in general, a handsome character. Makes no sense because that means the characters hate and fear him for what could be considered a disability (I know 14th-15th century setting but still...this guy is called a "monster"). But the ending when he suddenly became even more handsome out of nowhere and Melody says "You look so handsome," that was incredibly baffling and made me extremely angry. Golden Films wanted to get this out the same time as the Disney movie, but even Disney knew the story they were adapting from. All Golden Films knew is that there is a deformed (might be an overstatement since their character is NOT DEFORMED) bellringer in the bell tower of Notre Dame, kept from the outside world because of his looks. That's all there is in the movie. There's nothing of who Quasimodo's "parent(s)" are, there has never been a priest seen in the movie, there is no Phoebus, there is no...dark, mature scenes, there's nothing that makes this movie relatable to the book...or even to anyone in general.
I get these movies were made for kids, but to be honest I would not let any children watch this film. The animation sloppy, the characters are either annoying, boring, or unlikable (or all of the above), the music is too annoying, and there is no message at all. Everything that happened the last few minutes was so terribly put together that finding out what the moral is is not likely. I would not waste time making sense of anything in this movie because if will never make actual sense. The Disney version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a way better movie to watch. Yes it's darker and more mature, but so is the book, and I appreciate Disney for putting together what I think is one of greatest 2D animated films of all time.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame II
(2002 Video)
(Face palms) What a dumb kid I was...
5 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
The Hunchback of Notre Dame is one of my favorite animated movies ever. When I first saw it, I could not keep my eyes off of it because it was such a dynamic movie. The story, the characters, the atmosphere, the score and the soundtrack. At the time I saw this, which was somewhere in the late '90s, it was very unique from the other movies I saw (probably because of it being such a dark movie, but I can't say my 3-4 year old mind even noticed) and it remains in my top animated movies. So when I watched The Hunchback of Notre Dame 2, like the little dumb kid I was, I dug it up because...it was a sequel and sequels to good movie are always good right???....
When this movie reappeared for the first time in flipping years, it was on Netflix and...yeaaa...the movie is awful. I actually hate it because it really dumped on the first movie super...hard. The animation was not good, looking like a damn '90s rip off movie. The story was weak and corny, the songs were stupid and forgettable, the characters I loved in the first movie were lame and useless, the villian was...ugh, and Quasimodo's love interest was pretty damn boring.
It would not be until some 6 or 7 years later after watching this sequel that I find out the first movie was based off Victor Hugo's 1831 gothic novel "The Hunchback of Notre Dame". Reading a synopsis on the book (I tried actually reading the book too but that did not go well...), I found out the true ending (along with everything else that was very different) of the book, of Quasimodo dying beside a dead Esmerelda. So this sequel actually turned out to be useless. Even though Quasimodo did not die in the Disney version, it still had a good enough ending. The movie exists to give Quasimodo a girlfriend. I'm all down for Quasimodo getting a woman because he really is a kind-hearted, sweet character who always puts the people he loves before him, making him probably one of the nicest characters I ever seen in an animated movie. But something about the way the romance was handled in this movie...oh my God I just...I just really hated it. I literally wanted to punch myself in the face for actually acknowledging its existence when I first watched it on television in 2002!! I loved the first movie, but this trash sequel is just awful and disrespectful. Do not watch it. Trust me you are not missing anything.
When this movie reappeared for the first time in flipping years, it was on Netflix and...yeaaa...the movie is awful. I actually hate it because it really dumped on the first movie super...hard. The animation was not good, looking like a damn '90s rip off movie. The story was weak and corny, the songs were stupid and forgettable, the characters I loved in the first movie were lame and useless, the villian was...ugh, and Quasimodo's love interest was pretty damn boring.
It would not be until some 6 or 7 years later after watching this sequel that I find out the first movie was based off Victor Hugo's 1831 gothic novel "The Hunchback of Notre Dame". Reading a synopsis on the book (I tried actually reading the book too but that did not go well...), I found out the true ending (along with everything else that was very different) of the book, of Quasimodo dying beside a dead Esmerelda. So this sequel actually turned out to be useless. Even though Quasimodo did not die in the Disney version, it still had a good enough ending. The movie exists to give Quasimodo a girlfriend. I'm all down for Quasimodo getting a woman because he really is a kind-hearted, sweet character who always puts the people he loves before him, making him probably one of the nicest characters I ever seen in an animated movie. But something about the way the romance was handled in this movie...oh my God I just...I just really hated it. I literally wanted to punch myself in the face for actually acknowledging its existence when I first watched it on television in 2002!! I loved the first movie, but this trash sequel is just awful and disrespectful. Do not watch it. Trust me you are not missing anything.
Cinderella II: Dreams Come True
(2002 Video)
Does not work
5 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Being the 7 year old kid I was when this first came out on VHS, I watched this like it was another Disney Princess movie with no problem at all. Some 16 years later after watching it again, I did catch on that it was not as good as I remember. In Cinderella, there was an actual plot based on Perrault's version of the fairytale: a young woman who was regularly abused by her stepmother and stepsisters gets help from her fairy godmother to get to the prestigious royal ball for one night. In this sequel, there's no real plot, as it is just three stories being told by the mice and fairy godmother about...nothing really. The first story tells of Cinderella handling princess duties right after becoming a princess. The second story is about Jack complaining about being too small to help Cinderella now that she's a princess getting help from other people in the castle. So the fairy godmother Grant's his wish of being a human so he could help Cinderella better. The third story is about Cinderella helping her stepsister, Anastasia, win the heart of a Baker.
This movie does not quite work because it focuses on things that honestly does not matter. It just comes off as being lazy, except of course with the great animation and great voice acting. While the characters were not terrible, they still kind of lacked development, especially the prince because like in the first movie, we barely saw him. Hell he was literally out the picture once the movie started!! The mice appeared a bit too regularly considering the movie should be about the title character. The fairy godmother lives in the palace?? Anastasia is the only character who did develop more (even better development in Cindere lla 3), which honestly made me wish there was a movie about her alone. And the stories weren't good either because everything was too rushed and boring for there to be an actual plot. Of course all this would later change when Cinderalla 3 comes out, which was a WAY BETTER sequel with an actual plot. This movie is good for entertaining the little ones, but I'd probably just skip this one and show the third movie instead.
This movie does not quite work because it focuses on things that honestly does not matter. It just comes off as being lazy, except of course with the great animation and great voice acting. While the characters were not terrible, they still kind of lacked development, especially the prince because like in the first movie, we barely saw him. Hell he was literally out the picture once the movie started!! The mice appeared a bit too regularly considering the movie should be about the title character. The fairy godmother lives in the palace?? Anastasia is the only character who did develop more (even better development in Cindere lla 3), which honestly made me wish there was a movie about her alone. And the stories weren't good either because everything was too rushed and boring for there to be an actual plot. Of course all this would later change when Cinderalla 3 comes out, which was a WAY BETTER sequel with an actual plot. This movie is good for entertaining the little ones, but I'd probably just skip this one and show the third movie instead.
Joshua and the Promised Land
(2003 Video)
Hmm...
4 March 2019
Not the worst thing I ever seen...since I did end up finding something EVEN WORSE than this, but as a Baptist...even I would not show this to children in Sunday school...well, I'm assuming it was supposed to be meant for children (remembering the "adultry" line, and a certain deleted scene). Even if this whole movie was done by one guy for 4 years...within those 4 years there could have been some sort of improvement in this animation, but the ENTIRE MOVIE looks terrible from start to finish. The character designs are terrible, the backgrounds are terrible, the movements are "ugh", the voice acting is terrible and loud a lot of times (kept turning my damn tv down), the editing is terrible, and the story...the story is not terrible as it is based off one of the greatest Bible stories of all time, but it was executed very poorly. The Prince of Egypt is a way better Biblical animated movie to watch as it more kid-friendly, way better animated, and an even more expanded conflict that not only involved Moses freeing the Hebrews, but also meaning becoming his brother's enemy. Joshua is not actually in that movie, but it still pretty much gets its point across. "Joshua and the Promised Land" works for a punishment movie for bad children.
Rapunzel
(2005 Video)
Everything about this movie is appalling...
4 March 2019
I felt every...single...second SLOWLY pass as I sat through only half of this 48 minute so-called "movie". Everything about this movie is awful to the point where it may actually traumatize the audience this is mostly intended for...assumingly toddlers, and they do not deserve this awfulness. Barbie Rapunzel came out a couple of years before (I think 2002 or 2003) and works way better as a simple Rapunzel movie for toddlers to watch, as well as Disney's Tangled, which is a great movie. Since less than probably 30 people seen this movie, than people will mostly likely not accidently run into it...like I have.
Tell Your Friends