Disney Sequel Marathon - First time watching!

All topics relating to Disney-branded content.
User avatar
Big One
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 155
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:35 pm

Cinderella III: A Twist in Time - Review

Post by Big One »

<center>Image</center>

Heh...was pretty good. Not that bad! They should've just called this Cinderella III: A Twist in Sequel Quality. Anyway...

The Good:

I'll start with this, cause I genuinely feel that this movie excels at more good than anything else, both in terms of quantity and importance of the film's design. For Return to Neverland, while I felt it had plenty of problems, the characters made up for it cause the main focus of the film was the characters. Cinderella III: A Twist in Time is kind of an inverse of this in concept. I'll explain...

Animation - The animation in this is freaking beautiful. While in Bambi II - which had great quality animation - Cinderella III: A Twist in Time stays in quality with the original Cinderella. Characters have facial expressions that are beautifully animated, and there's a real authenticity to all of it. It's really great stuff that I can't help to commend the efforts of DisneyToon Studios for. The characters have animations that feel almost rotoscoped at times, I feel - which is pretty fluid. My favorite scene is easily the climax of the film, when Cinderella's dress is all tore up and she's stuck in a magic-infused pumpkin carriage and basically fights her way out of it completely out of man-power. It's dark, intense, and genuine.

Story - Now while I don't think it's necessarily well-told, the story is pretty intense. While the Title is A Twist in Time, I think the twist for this movie is effectively turning Cinderella's story into an action movie in comparison to the romance plot of Cinderella. Ignoring the blight that is Cinderella II: Dreams Come True, the plot and style goes back to the original movie. The whole sequence of events in the film, really feel like it could've happened in Cinderella, outside of some uninspired blights (cake sequence, UGH). It's pretty consistent not only with the original, but with itself, so it gets a big thumbs up from me to the writers and director of the film.

The movie is action packed, but this aspect ties in both Animation and Story. Cinderella is a true badass in this, pushing her in places you would never thought she would be. Alternatively, putting her in places you would never thought she would be could make her more vulnerable too...

<center>Image
Cinderella's reaction to Cinderella II: Dreams Come True as it's looming shadow
attempts to destroy her hymen like it destroyed my faith in humanity.
</center>
While this may sound kind of hammy, I think this actually brings more depth on the Cinderella character. In the original Cinderella - despite it ending in a very random and magical ending for Cinderella - had already a lot of depth about how Cinderella's character shaped up to be. Her story is tragic so the only emphasized sides you see of her are the two extremes: Joyous and depressed. She goes through specific character arcs tailored for the audience's emotional response, and it works well in the original. With Cinderella III: A Twist in Time, instead of rehashing those two elements all over again, we begin to see the more Grey side to Cinderella's Yin and Yang. The "Twist" isn't just about the fact that it takes place in an alternate universe situation, or the fact that the movie has an action movie take on Cinderella's classic story, but it's on Cinderella's character too. In my opinion, this is the highlight of the film and actually makes it worth watching. It expands on an already great character.

My only real beef with the story is that it is, ultimately, a pointless venture. Actually...maybe the intent was to erase Cinderella II: Dreams Come True from history? That could work!

Characters - With exception of the few, characters in this movie are great. Aside from Cinderella - which I've already explained in the above paragraphs - the side characters are also consistent to the original for the most part. There are exceptions, but characters like the king, Laddy Tremaine, the Duke, etc. are pretty much what I expect to see them do and how they act, so nothing really there is disappointing. There is one major change to the characters, however: Prince Charming. Prince Charming has been completely revamped from having no character, to having actual character and personality. He comes off as dumb sometimes, but he isn't bad and it is an improvement overall.

The Bad:

Oh boy...don't get me started on some of these aspects.

Anastasia - Mygod did she painfully take the place of Cinderella's Mary Sue from Cinderella II: Dreams Come True in this movie. Did the writers really think that fans would be convinced and sympathetic to a really dull, ugly, and unfunny comedic character such as Anastasia? Like in Cinderella II: Dreams Come True, she gets character focus...but even more-so. This time everything goes her way, and it doesn't really take her till the end till she realizes how horrible she's been. Then the movie has the gall to compare her to the queen like she is special or some shit. I'm sorry but her whole involvement with the movie's plot was cringeworthy, considering we got scenes like this:

<center>Image
How many people laughed at this scene? According to the United Nations: 0.</center>
The Humor in this movie in general is pretty lame, but this scene particularly strikes me as awful. Not only is it pointless to the actual character arcs at hand, but it's unrealistic to the characters of Anastasia and Drizella. When you watched Cinderella, did you ever imagine those two ruining something as big as the cake scene? They were ladies of class, even though clumsy with a high temper, they wouldn't do what occurred in the above scene. It's really an embarrassing scene that isn't funny either, and easily the worst scene in the film.

Now taking this in consideration, was it really appropriate to give Anastasia development in an already awful non-developed character role? It just seems out of place with what is established already in the movie, and ultimately hamfisting a need to please her niche fanbase. What's worse is that she's actually pretty much CO-STARRING THE ENTIRE FILM! It sucks, to be honest.

Humor - This movie, like it's predecessor, wasn't funny at all. There was some moments - like some lines of dialogue that you can tell the voice actors and writers were having fun with - but pretty much all the humor in this is lackluster and uninspired. The mice still aren't funny, but at least they move the plot forward this time (in the most unfunny way possible).

The Meh:

While I don't feel like going too deep into it, I think the Dialogue for the film wasn't really that good or bad.

There are also some really strange moments that feel kind of held back just to keep on with the plot, such as when Cinderella finally gets the wand for the first time it takes forever for her to actually start using it before she's captured. Then there's the fact that the prince jumped from the window in one scene as if he was going head-first into the ground, but it panned to another shot where he was climbing down some vines? There's some other scenes like this, but nothing in particularly jarring, but when I saw them I could only say to myself, "They really should've edited this better.

As I've said before, also, that the Story could've been done a lot better. Tremaine sure does restrict herself to using a wand that has god-like powers, which seems odd to me cause you'd think she would just create her own kingdom out of magic for her two daughters to have sex with any dreamy guys they want at any time.

Conclusion:

Cinderella III: A Twist in Time is a good movie, sometimes even great, but really should've been polished more. It's biggest strength I feel is how it handles Cinderella's character, which is really exciting and fun to watch. Ultimately, even though I still have a long way to go, I have a feeling this movie is DisneyToon Studio's swan song in a lot of ways. If not for the quality of the movie's story itself, then for the quality of the animation and how it stays consistent to the original aesthetic.

6/10

Up next: The Hunchback of Notre Dame II
Image
User avatar
Sotiris
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 21069
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:06 am
Gender: Male
Location: Fantasyland

Re: Cinderella III: A Twist in Time - Review

Post by Sotiris »

Big One wrote:Up next: The Hunchback of Notre Dame II
You're in for a treat :P Personaly, I've found this to be much worse than Cinderella II.
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Big One
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 155
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:35 pm

Re: Cinderella III: A Twist in Time - Review

Post by Big One »

Sotiris wrote:You're in for a treat :P Personaly, I've found this to be much worse than Cinderella II.
Then I may have to create a negative scoring system.

Just a topic of discussion: What Disney sequels are worse than Cinderella II? Or what do you guys think are the lowest of the low when it comes to Disney sequels?
Image
skippy
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:29 am

Post by skippy »

Interesting way to spend your time.

I'm assuming that someone else beat you to the "red hot pokers in my eyes" marathon?

What does your psychiatrist say about your masochistic streak?
:wink:
Where's the rest of Elfego Baca and the Swamp Fox?
PatrickvD
Signature Collection
Posts: 5207
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:34 am
Location: The Netherlands

Post by PatrickvD »

Hunchback II is insanely awful. I ordered the original film's dvd edition online and when I got it and opened it, it had the disc of the sequel. I got the replacement disc of the original film... but that sequel was just staring at me... I could not resist.

Boy did it suck. You are gonna hate this film's guts. It's up there with Cinderella II.
skippy
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:29 am

Post by skippy »

I love the message of Hunchback 2.

You've got to be blind to love this ugly bastard.
Where's the rest of Elfego Baca and the Swamp Fox?
Wonderlicious
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4661
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:47 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Wonderlicious »

While I agree that Cinderella II isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier, viewing it in the context of it actually being filmed episodes of an aborted TV series as opposed to a fully intended sequel makes it easier to swallow. If the TV series had gone through, there would have been less expectation and less sense of it not being true canon, as opposed to billing it as an intended feature-length follow-up of sorts. Of course, it's still pretty mediocre either way, especially with those songs (like, really bad songs :p). In short, Cinderella II is basically aimed at nobody over the age of 10, and the biggest blunder was to label it as the long-awaited sequel to a film with universal appeal.

Cinderella III gets points for being a bit more daring and creative than the first sequel, but it doesn't really capture the overall tone of the original, in fact probably less so than Cinderella II in some aspects. Part of the problem may be that one was made in 1950, the other in 2007, and the film seems more in common with 90s Disney than 50s Disney. Regardless, the idea of the stepmother stealing the godmother's magic and creating a twisted alternate universe seems at odds with the original's down-to-earth atmosphere (where magic invades a mundane setting, as opposed to it coexisting with the normal) and it's still insanely childish in parts.

In any case, neither is as Belle's Magical World (a similar flick to Cinderella II in both its history and its structure, a collection of episodes intended for a never seen TV series). You're gonna need therapy after that one, as it's more beast than it is beauty. :twisted:
Last edited by Wonderlicious on Wed Feb 09, 2011 8:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Big One
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 155
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:35 pm

Post by Big One »

Wonderlicious wrote:While I agree that Cinderella II isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier, viewing it in the context of it actually being filmed episodes of an aborted TV series as opposed to a fully intended sequel makes it easier to swallow.
This is true. This is why I decided to give a 2/10 instead of a 0/10 like I intended. But as I said it really is no wonder why this was canned...and I'll most likely agree with the same for Belle's Magical World. With The Hunchback of Notre Dame II I'm kind of looking forward to my fanrage cause the original happens to be one of my favorite Disney movies of all time!
Image
User avatar
Sotiris
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 21069
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:06 am
Gender: Male
Location: Fantasyland

Post by Sotiris »

PatrickvD wrote:Boy did it suck. You are gonna hate this film's guts. It's up there with Cinderella II.
:lol: True :wink: The story is bad, the songs are bad, the animation is awful. There's nothing redeeming about this one.
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Super Aurora
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4835
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:59 am

Post by Super Aurora »

OH shit! You're going to do hunchback 2, Groundwalker? We gotta watch this together! Let me know when you do. LOL Looking forward to all the commentaries for this one as well LOL
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
User avatar
avonleastories95
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 11:53 am
Location: The Ninth Floor, looking for a gold thimble

Post by avonleastories95 »

I applaud you! Good luck in your future viewings of the sequels. May not every nerve you have be stood on etc etc etc.
User avatar
Big One
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 155
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:35 pm

The Hunchback of Notre Dame II - Review

Post by Big One »

<center>Image</center>

There isn't much I'm going to be able to say about this one aside from - despite being an abyssmal and boring piece of crap - it's still better than Cinderella II: Dreams Come True. I know that may come to a shock, but my rage for this movie is pretty non-existent, despite my love for the original. It's just a really boring movie with some so-bad-it's-good parts to it. Some parts were intended to be serious or not-funny but I can't help to laugh at them.

The Bad:

Characters - While the main voice actors may return, none of the characters act much like the original. All of the dialogue sounds bad, and a lot of the established development from The Hunchback of Notre Dame is abandoned for this movie. Phoebus is still racist against gypsies, Quasi is now able to openly participate in activities in the city, and Esmeralda isn't as awesome anymore. I also noticed how Phoebus and Esmeralda have a kid who looks to be around 6 years old, but they themselves appear to not have aged; same with Quasimodo. The gargoyles are back and are just as unfunny as they were in the original movie, except this time they take the Gargoyle x Goat joke way too far. It's at the very beginning when the movie establishes that absolutely no effort was put into the characters.

The new characters are just as bad. Madellaine is a Mary Sue that isn't taken too far like Cinderella in Cinderella II: Dreams Come True or Anastasia in Cinderella III: A Twist in Time. She kind of flows in between two extremes. Let's say if there's a line with one side being Mary Sue and one side being Boring she'd be smack dab in the middle. There is nothing really to comment on her, because she doesn't have a character. She doesn't have any real backstory or reason why she's helping Sarousch (I'll get to him in a minute); does she owe him something? If so PLEASE explain this to me cause I must've missed something in the movie. Then there's Phoebus and Esmeralda's son, Zephyr, who is simply annoying and has a horrible singing voice.

No onto Sarousch...ah, Sarousch. Well when he was first introduced, I was watching this with Super Aurora when I said, "Wow his design is pretty neat, he'd make a great Disney villain." But boy, oh boy should I be careful what I wish for...

<center>Image
I still say this design is pretty neat...under the mask.
(Yes I did watch this on youtube.)
</center>
Man was this guy horrible, but almost in a strangely good way. Every line of dialogue is comically villainous and self-absorbed, and I can't help to crack a smile when he has portraits of himself all over his dressing room or when his final line is, "I do birthday parties!" as he is taken away to jail. Sarousch is so ridiculous and full of himself, that it's comical and fun to watch, but only because of how bad of a villain he is. I'll explain: This guy is, quite frankly, uninspired, incompetent, dull, boring, and one of the worst villains to come out of the Disney Villain pantheon. Everytime he goes gaga over himself or is self-absorbed, it's really ironic cause there is nothing to be self-absorbed about Sarousch. It isn't like Gaston where he's an actual kind of badass, Sarousch is just a bad villain who thinks he's tough shit who is only really feared by Madellaine. His character is legitimately hilarious because he's so bad.

Music - Mygod are the lyrics in this awful. The actual singing is actually pretty good for the most part, but singing isn't really much without lyrics. These are literally the worst lyrics for any song I've ever heard in a Disney film, it's disgusting. Just listen for yourself:

<center><iframe title="YouTube video player" width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BNYilGAdqe4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><iframe title="YouTube video player" width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LPfQSZhhCfs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></center>
I wish I could find the duet Quasimodo and Zephyr have on youtube...mygod.

Now compare these songs to the great songs from The Hunchback of Notre Dame:

<center><iframe title="YouTube video player" width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/z5tD9oFqlk4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><iframe title="YouTube video player" width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-GZc_OBmsbI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><iframe title="YouTube video player" width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/l3cVi1oQH9I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></center>
Animation - While more fluid than Cinderella II: Dreams Come True, it's a LOT more janky. There are animation errors everywhere and you can tell that this was a very rushed movie. There were moments where characters would disappear on screen as they tried to exit the screen; instead of walking naturally of the screen they would just disappear. On the roof-hopping scene, Madellaine jumps from roof-to-roof with Quasimodo and manages to jump on a roof that is even further in the background when it comes to perspective, but the animation team treated it almost like it was some Super Mario Bros. shit. Much like the characters, the animation has no real effort put into it. There are moments where you can see effort was put into it, but a lot of scenes in this film feel like they've been left unedited.

Story - In concept, the story is fine. The Hunchback of Notre Dame ended on a note where Quasimodo was forever alone, so you'd think that if they were going to make a sequel they'd give him someone who loves him, right? The Hunchback of Notre Dame II takes this so simple and effective concept and turns it into a really stupid, boring, and dull movie. Did it forget that Esmeralda was the true main character of the original film and Quasimodo was mainly a side-main character? Why can't we get some focus on her too rather than being reduced to a side-character? Ignoring that, Quasimodo's own development throughout the story with the new character Madellaine is down-right terrible. When they first meet, they both fall in love with each other. WHY?! HOW CAN YOU DO THAT?! Goddammit it pisses me off, they don't even really get to see each other much! They have no real right to love each other nor do they get much emotional development with each other to deserve it. There is no development between them, just scene after scene telling you they have development without showing it. While this ties in with the problems of the Characters, the whole story focus was on Quasimodo and Madellaine's love relationship.

In the final moments of the movie, none of the side characters are competent enough to try to stop Sarousch, which is strange cause weren't Esmeralda and Phoebe pretty brave and competent characters in The Hunchback of Notre Dame? I hate the whole final scene of the film, when Sarousch has Zephyr in his hands and threatens to hurt him if they don't let him pass.

<center>HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY WEAPONS, IDIOTS, JUST JUMP IN AND PUNCH THE SHIT OUT OF
HIM!! GODDAMMIT HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY RUIN SUCH COMMON CHARACTER TRAITS
THAT WERE ESTABLISHED IN THE ORIGINAL MOVIE?!!!

Image
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF!!!!</center>

Conclusion:

This movie is bad in so many different ways, but some parts were genuinely enjoyable. As I said, it isn't as bad as Cinderella II: Dreams Come True but it isn't very good either. It really isn't as rage-inducing or unfunny...it's just boring, which Cinderella II: Dreams Come True was too but not exclusively like The Hunchback of Notre Dame II is. I think that's the biggest crime of this movie: There is no excuse for it's quality, none. There's no excuse to have the original voice actors to return and have them play roles that are alien to their original characters, and still have horrible lyrics, rushed animation, and all sorts of other flaws. There's no excuse not to at least attempt to bring some character development, nor is there is an excuse to have uninspired "original" characters.

3/10

Up next: The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea and The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning
Last edited by Big One on Sat Feb 12, 2011 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Big One
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 155
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:35 pm

The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea - Review (NSFW)

Post by Big One »

<center>Image</center>

Look at this piece of anus infestation, this shit is a blight on all of humanity. I hold no hatred for the people involved with the production of this movie...but pity. Someone out there thought it was a good idea to greenlight this piece of shit, like their opinion on what and how a sequel to a great movie should be done really matters. Anyone could've done a better movie, ANYONE, even your mother. How can you compile so much lack of talent to produce this piece of garbage and expect it to be well-received, I do not know. This is the very definition of a lazy movie at it's purest, concentrated form. Let's begin...

The Bad:

Everything in The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea is garbage with no redeeming features or even possible redeeming features that one opinionated people could shake on and agree that people's mileage does vary. This isn't the case with The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea, which doesn't have the decency to at least be kind of so-bad-it's-good much like The Hunchback of Notre Dame II, or bad enough to only be 2 points worth rather than 0 points worth like Cinderella II: Dreams Come True. The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea is one of the few movies in existence that I can safely say is a blunt dud, without any opposing opinions whatsoever, and everything in this movie is absolutely wrong.

Characters - All of the characters in this movie have been destroyed on a level I've never seen before with the other Disney sequels, to the point that rather than being just stupid their personalities have completely changed without any indication to why that's the case other than it's been a few years since The Little Mermaid and all of a sudden everyone is different (and stupider) now. Oh, also...

<center>Image
Look at this shit, LOOK AT IT!!

Image
NOW LOOK AT THIS</center>
How could you fuck up such a basic concept? Character designs all around are awful and make all of the characters look practically like Barbie dolls.

But that isn't nearly the worst of it all. As I said, all of the characters in this movie act stupid as hell, and I'm not even spouting typical hyperbole either. Ariel fears the sea now just because the most incompetent villain in all of fiction (I'll get to this later) scared her off and she's living a lifestyle she wouldn't ever aim for, Prince Eric does nothing and is a poopy-head (see above pictures), Sebastian is whiney rather than a humorous black culture stereotype, and King Triton is stupid too. Everyone was fucked over in this movie, everyone, none was sparred.

Then there's the "original" characters...I'll start with Melody. Disney decided to do something new with The Little Mermaid property, by effectively trying to turn it's fans into pedophiles. They already tried this with the shirtless scene in The Rescuers when Penny got undressed, but it didn't really work cause she wasn't really cute enough to hate and want to fuck. Disney one day gathered a bunch of people in a single office and asked, "How can we appeal to the pedophile niche that aren't captured by our previous efforts?" and Melody was made. Let me deconstruct this shit:

1. Voiced by Tara Strong

<center>Image</center>
2. Given traits and storyline of a previously established sexy character (Ariel)

<center>ImageImage</center>
3. Exposed skin (midriff, shoulders) and derpy, luscious lips to compensate for lack of lower half to fuck

<center>Image</center>
She has all of the traits to not only appeal to all pedophiles but to normal men too. Disney is trying to tempt us to fall to the dark side and it's quite effective here. If you don't believe me just look up "Melody Paheal" in Google and you'll see tons of proof. ;)

With that out of the way, Melody herself is just a really generic character. She really isn't a Mary Sue like Cinderella in Cinderella II: Dreams Come True, she just kind of tries to be. Just like all of the other characters, all she does is a bunch of stupid shit over and over again without much reason. There isn't much I could say about her.

Morgana...Morgana

<center>Image
OH MY GOD...!</center>
Who thought this was a good idea, WHO?! I want to know who thought of this character, cause in no one possible could he or she have thought this was a creative supplement to Ursula. Now I'm not saying Ursula was really that great of a villain, but Morgana is an abomination to the Disney Villain name. Ursula served her purpose, she was intimidating, spiteful, manipulative, and convincing. Morgana is the complete opposite yet every character practically hypes her up as being worse than Ursula in how they handle her bullshit. If Ariel, Prince Eric, and Triton can collaborate to destroy Ursula, why can't they do the same with Morgana when she attempts to steal Melody? Just a thought, really...more than anything any of the characters ever did at least. Morgana is so goddamn incompetent it hurts to even watch her plot out her schemes; nothing is there, nothing.

Tip and Dash...just watch this video:

<center><iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/FzhcvKNSvlY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></center>
Wait a second, I recognize that voice from somewhere, I've heard this before...

<center>Image
ARE YOU HAPPY THAT YOU INTRUDED ON
MY BABYLON 5 MARATHON, DISNEY?!
</center>
Animation - The animation...is awful. It's like if they mixed the stiff animation from Cinderella II: Dreams Come True with the janky and ugly animation of The Hunchback of Notre Dame II. Yeah, it's pretty much worse than both, but at least there isn't really any blatant animation errors (to be fair). I've already a addressed the issue with the character design, so I can't really say much about it other than it's awful. This movie looks more like the Disney TV cartoons of that era rather than a feature length film with some budget put into the animation.

Plot - Now you may've asked, "Is he ending there?" and the answer is that, unfortunately, I'm not cause there's still more shit to talk about. But these'll be more brief and less-picture heavy cause, unlike the characters, there isn't enough image macros to describe how I feel about the Plot. Now you may've noticed that I picked the word Plot instead of Story, but that's because I have no qualms with the actual Story just how it's told in sequence (the Plot). This is a huge problem in this movie and it never picks up for the better or ever really stops till the end.

All of the shit that goes on in the movie barely makes sense in sequence. I hate to say there's "no plot" but I think this applies to The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea when trying to describe what happens. We have a series of really badly written character arcs, plotpoints, and scenes that don't flow too well together naturally.

1. Why is there glaciers nearby?
2. How does Triton and Prince Eric find Melody so fast at the end all of a sudden?
3. How did Triton not see Melody when she was RIGHT THERE when the table was moved?
etc. etc.

There's so much stupid shit like this in the movie, and what's worse is while there are problems with the plotpoints, the actual plot doesn't give them justice in sequence. Nothing makes sense in this movie, which sucks cause you'd think a movie starring Ariel's daughter could be a cute and fun romp for little girls, but this is the complete opposite of what you expect. This isn't a fun movie, it's a badly written one to the point of being abysmally offensive to the human condition. This movie just goes too far with this shit.

The Good:

<center>Image
At least it's still better than this piece of shit. Don't believe me?
Why don't you watch it, motherfucker?
</center>
Conclusion:

The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea is one of the worst animated movies of all time, but there are worse and worse film in general. This shit is worse than Dinosaur...and that's pretty fucking bad, cause no Disney movie is worse than that piece of garbage. I'd rather spend the rest of my life reading Disney Duster's posts than to ever watch this shit again.

1/10

Up next: The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning Review
Image
User avatar
Disney's Divinity
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 16239
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:26 am
Gender: Male

Re: The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea - Review (NSFW)

Post by Disney's Divinity »

Big One wrote:Now I'm not saying Ursula was really that great of a villain,
You just lost me.

I think the Morgana could've at least "worked" (in a horrible sequel, at least), if they had stuck with the, "It's Ursula's crazy sister!" (So Ursula...wasn't crazy?). But after the intro, she just whines and whines, and the whole family plotline really craps all over the original's Ursula. Still, it's hard for me to ever outright hate this movie, because it at least gives me more Pat Carroll. :lol:

And even in a rank of badness, Cinderella 2 and Hunchback 2 are clearly much much much worse.
Image
Listening to most often lately:
Taylor Swift ~ ~ "The Fate of Ophelia"
Taylor Swift ~ "Eldest Daughter"
Taylor Swift ~ "CANCELLED!"
User avatar
Big One
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 155
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:35 pm

Re: The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea - Review (NSFW)

Post by Big One »

Disney's Divinity wrote:You just lost me.
Ursula I feel is very overrated. She's effective, but much like Maleficent of Sleeping Beauty fame she doesn't really have much reason for her insanity. She's memorable but aside from that she's outclassed by tons of other Disney villains, both obscure and popular.
Disney's Divinity wrote:And even in a rank of badness, Cinderella 2 and Hunchback 2 are clearly much much much worse.
I disagree, but whatever. I don't really understand how it's better than both when it's infinitely more annoying, animated worse, and doesn't have a proper plot structure that both of those movies have (and that gives me shivers down my spine saying that in defense of Cinderella II: Dreams Come True).
Image
Rudy Matt
Special Edition
Posts: 694
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 7:45 pm

Post by Rudy Matt »

You poor bastard...you should make a documentary about subjecting yourself to this kind of self-abuse, like Super Size Me. You could call it Super Blind Me, because I'd think a steady diet of the cheapquels would make anyone wish they had gone blind.
User avatar
phan258
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 305
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:28 pm

Post by phan258 »

Oh my god, these reviews are hysterical! :lol:

Although come on, I think the line "URSULA'S CRAZY SISTER!!!" is worth an extra point....just because it's so amazingly insane/funny/wtf. XD
<a href="http://s1116.photobucket.com/albums/k56 ... t=sig2.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1116.photobucket.com/albums/k56 ... 8/sig2.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
User avatar
Disney's Divinity
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 16239
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:26 am
Gender: Male

Re: The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea - Review (NSFW)

Post by Disney's Divinity »

Big One wrote:Ursula I feel is very overrated. She's effective, but much like Maleficent of Sleeping Beauty fame she doesn't really have much reason for her insanity. She's memorable but aside from that she's outclassed by tons of other Disney villains, both obscure and popular.
I think she's given a large amount of motivation to be insane. She's been banished and isolated for years. During that time, her desire for revenge became an obsession.

But we'll have to agree to disagree there (completely). I think Ursula is easily the best modern villain they've had. The only ones that even come close to topping her are Frollo and Scar (the former of which I think is very overrated myself). Her octopus design is incredible, her voice acting is top-notch, and "Poor Unfortunate Souls" is, imo, easily the best Disney villain song there's been ("Hellfire" comes extremely close, imo, but it doesn't do nearly as much or in as clever a way--though I'm sure others would feel differently).

Also, I'm not sure how anyone could say Return to the Sea is animated worse than either of the other two--when those others are saturday cartoon animation. Admittedly, it's not good animation either (there's a lot of off-modelness going on), but not nearly as bad as those (or the Belle movie).
Image
Listening to most often lately:
Taylor Swift ~ ~ "The Fate of Ophelia"
Taylor Swift ~ "Eldest Daughter"
Taylor Swift ~ "CANCELLED!"
User avatar
Big One
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 155
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:35 pm

Re: The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea - Review (NSFW)

Post by Big One »

Disney's Divinity wrote:I think she's given a large amount of motivation to be insane. She's been banished and isolated for years. During that time, her desire for revenge became an obsession.
Her insanity predates her banishment, there's really no excuse. She didn't have a personal vendetta against the king, she was just crazy for the sake of being evil and fucking over people's lives (as seen in the song you pointed out). Ursula is an effective villain, but I wouldn't call her great. Lady Tremaine, Ratigan, Gaston, Scar, Frollo, Hades, Yzma, and Dr. Faciler are great. I don't think Ursula is really in these ranks and more on a second-tier rank with characters like Maleficent or the Queen of Hearts.
Disney's Divinity wrote:Also, I'm not sure how anyone could say Return to the Sea is animated worse than either of the other two--when those others are saturday cartoon animation. Admittedly, it's not good animation either (there's a lot of off-modelness going on), but not nearly as bad as those (or the Belle movie).
Actually The Hunchback of Notre Dame II's animation isn't really much like Saturday Morning Cartoon animation, it's just really janky and full of animation errors and perspective fuckups. It's like quality animation that they've never finished. I'd say that The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea and Cinderella II: Dreams Come True are more along those lines, and I have a feeling that Belle's Magical Adventure will be the same due to it's nature as a canned animated series.
Image
User avatar
Disney's Divinity
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 16239
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:26 am
Gender: Male

Re: The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea - Review (NSFW)

Post by Disney's Divinity »

Her insanity predates her banishment, there's really no excuse.
Actually, it doesn’t. Besides the fact that the movie portrays her as reacting towards her banishment, we don’t actually get much about what happened before…so I’m not sure how you could even say her “insanity predates her banishment,” when we never see any of that. If she was insane before, she wouldn’t have been a part of the court to begin with. She didn't get banished until she attempted to dethrone the king (or so we guess)--which you don't necessarily have to be crazy to think of doing.

If you don't like her, that's fine. But that argument doesn't fly at all.

Also, I question if she's really that crazy at all. She's just twisted. She seems perfectly all there in all the scenes not related to Triton. The fact that she keeps people as worms has more to do with arrogance than crazy--how dare they come ask her (a royal) for help with their stupid little bs? That's partly why purple is her main color (royal-arrogance).

She didn't have a personal vendetta against the king, she was just crazy for the sake of being evil and fucking over people's lives (as seen in the song you point out below).
Okay…you actually watched the movie, right?
Image
Listening to most often lately:
Taylor Swift ~ ~ "The Fate of Ophelia"
Taylor Swift ~ "Eldest Daughter"
Taylor Swift ~ "CANCELLED!"
Post Reply