Cinderella II: Dreams Come True

Cinderella II: Dreams Come True

Cinderella II: Dreams Come True is composed of three stories in the Cinderella universe that take place after the 1950 Cinderella Disney movie. In this capacity, this thing acts like a sequel. The three story structure in this is beyond lame. First, it’s hard to gauge if the stories being told did happen or if they are retellings or made-up. It sort of seems to be a combination.

Fairy Godmother and Mice Cinderella II: Dreams Come True picture image

Fairy Godmother and Mice

The set-up for the stories is that the mice are being told the story of the first movie by the Fairy Godmother. It seems weird that that story should be retold to the mice as they were the heroes in the first place. They lived it. It’s a flimsily set-up. However, Gus and Jaq miss the story, so the Fairy God Mother says they should make a book for Cinderella with new stories. The stories they tell for the movie are the ones they put in the book.

Cinderella and the Grand Duke Cinderella II: Dreams Come True picture image

Cinderella and the Grand Duke

The stories are standard dull fair. Each story is about dreams and being yourself. You know, very trite cliche stuff that Disney loves. It seems like each story wasn’t interesting enough to make its own movie or even subplot in a movie. So each scenario is given a part.

Cinderella II: Dreams Come True

Cinderella

The first one is deals with Cinderella’s first day of being a Princess. She has to plan a banquet and it has to be done in a very traditional manner. Cinderella is a free-spirit now apparently and she doesn’t want to follow boring traditions, so she spices up the affair and revolutionizes party planning at the palace. You Go Girl!

Human Jaq Cinderella II: Dreams Come True

Human Jaq

The second story, which is the worst, is Jaq the mouse becoming human. Spoiler, it doesn’t work out very well for him and he learns that being a mouse is cool.

Anastasia and Baker-dude Cinderella II: Dreams Come True

Anastasia and Baker-dude

The third is wicked step-sister number 2, Anastasia, finds love with a lowly baker with Cinderella and pals’ help. Wicked Step-Mother is very much against this match. But she’s mean, so who cares.

Cinderella II: Dreams Come True picture image

Cinderella

The stories may stink like poo but how were the characters? Let’s just look at the main characters of the stories Cinderella, Jaq and Anastasia.

Cinderella, oh Cinderelly, Cinderelly. I think Cinderella gets a bad reputation for not having a personality, I would disagree. She doesn’t have a strong personality but in the original she had a bit of mischievous streak and she’s a bit catty. You can see these traits in her teasing the birds who are waking her up and her remark on the musical lesson.

She’s kind but she a little more subtly well rounded than just being sweet and kind. Cinderella in the sequel doesn’t have though facets she’s nice but that is kind of it. She has a free spirit and like doing her own thing but she is not as interesting as she could have been.

Jaq Cinderella II: Dreams Come True picture image

Jaq

Jaq was the leader of the mice. Him wanting to be human to help Cinderella doesn’t really fit his character at all. But his core personality which is minimal is still pretty much there.

Anastasia and Cinderella, Cinderella II: Dreams Come True  picture image

Anastasia and Cinderella,

Then there is Anastasia. Anastasia is now a reformed former baddie looking for love. Anastasia didn’t have much of a personality other than being unpleasant and wicked. Here she is just awkward.

I don’t mind her being a nice yet misunderstood. It just seems like a bit of stretch for her to abuse someone and then be friends with them in like a few days. Although in this, it’s more  a reflection on Cinderella than Anastasia.

Cinderella and the Mice Cinderella II: Dreams Come True picture image

Cinderella and the Mice

There is really not a lot to say on this one. The characters are off and the stories are just not interesting or fun. I hate the three part story within a story structure. I hate it as a TV episode and I hate it here. I hate Cinderella II: Dreams Come True, they only dream that came true was when it ended.

Quaismodo Bells of Notre dame reprise Disney Hunchback of Notre Dame picture image

Quaismodo Bells of Notre dame reprise Disney Hunchback of Notre Dame

Most of you already know this, but the debut of  the stage version of the Disney version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame has a location. It will debut at La Jolla Playhouse. It will be part of the 2014-2015 season in October. La Jolla Playhouse is a not-for-profit  professional theatre-in-residence located on the campus of the University of California, San Diego. It is unclear if Disney has plans to bring the show to Broadway after its run at La Jolla Playhouse but the Aladdin ran in Toronto before it went to Broadway,  so it hopefully will happen for Hunchback too.  It’s very exciting news!

Source – http://www.broadwayworld.com/article/BREAKING-DISNEYS-HUNCHBACK-OF-NOTRE-DAME-to-Have-US-Premiere-at-La-Jolla-Playhouse-20140124

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/culture/la-et-cm-hunchback-of-notre-dame-musical-20140123,0,181081.story#axzz2roLqX2rp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Jolla_Playhouse

1997 The hunchback Richard harris, frollo, Quasimodo, Mandy Patinkin, Salma Hayek, Esmeralda, picture image

1997 The hunchback

The 1997 version of the Hunchback of Notre Dame is simply called “The Hunchback.” It was a TV movie directed by Peter Medak and stars Inigo Montoya, Dumbledore and Salma Hayek. Wait, that’s not right, It stars Mandy Patinkin as Quasimodo, Richard Harris as Frollo and Salma Hayek as Salma Hayek, I mean Esmeralda.

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda, 1997 Hunchback of Notre Dame, picture image

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda, 1997 Hunchback of Notre Dame

Like the 1939 version, this version features the printing press very prominently, in fact it’s a major plot point. It is also one of the only versions that doesn’t have a Phoebus character. There is a blonde soldier but he’s a featured extra and nothing more.

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda, 1997 Hunchback of Notre Dame

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda, 1997 Hunchback of Notre Dame

Despite the title being “The Hunchback” this movie is most well known for Hayek as Esmeralda probably because in many was it’s a really good casting choice.

So how does this version fair? Is it a great version, a merely passable version, or a purely mediocre version?

Let’s find out!

Next time the Plot ……..

Mandy Patinkin as Quasimodo,  The Hunchback 1997 picture image

Mandy Patinkin as Quasimodo

Every monday for a while, I will go behind the Hunchback character’s name to see hidden facets to their characters as indicated by their names or in some cases very apparent facets. Anyway, let’s start with Mr. Quasimodo.

Quasimodo Illustrtion Francois flameng

Illustration of Quasimodo

 

Quasimodo’s name is a sad pun within the book. Frollo found Quasimodo abandoned at Notre Dame on Low Sunday, the Sunday after Easter, also called Quasimodo Sunday.  The name Quasimodo for this Sunday comes from the Latin text of the traditional Intriot from this day. An Introit is part of the opening of the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist. The Intriot for Low Sunday begins with “Quasi modo geniti infantes…”  from 1 Peter 2:2.  It roughly translates to  “As newborn babes, desire the rational milk without guile…”  The “Quasi modo” part means “As if” in this instance.

Quasimodo in isolation roughly means “Almost merely” or “Merely Almost.” The name indicates Quasimodo’s deformity and that he almost looks like a human or is an approximation of human. The meaning “half-formed” isn’t correct but it’s  the right idea.

In the Disney version, in an effort to villainize Frollo, which considering he just kill a mother and almost committed infanticide wasn’t necessary, they claimed the name was cruel. It’s not a name that one should give to a child as the meaning isn’t all that nice but  it’s not cruelly given. Naming children for days was a common practice. Frollo didn’t mean it cruelly, it was the day and apt description of the child. It is a very brilliant pun.

Side Note – Low Sunday was also known as St Thomas Sunday, so I guess Quasimodo COULD have been called Thomas but that doesn’t have the pathos as Quasimodo.

Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure picture image

Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp’s Adventure

Stylistically, Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp’s Adventure is not in the same universe as the original Lady and the Tramp. For one thing, the original was from a dog’s perceptive, which it makes it very jarring to see Jim-dear and Darling’s face but given that massive flaw is the movie bad? Hell yeah, it’s bad!

Scamp and Jim-dear, Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure picture image

Scamp and Jim-dear

Plot? Scamp, a.k.a mini-Tramp doesn’t like rules and runs away to the junkyard where there are no rules. The Junkyard dogs are a gang dogs that are led by Buster, who is a former chum of Tramp’s and bitter and then there is Angel, the love interest. But before he can join the gang, Scamp has to complete some tests. Angel tries to convince Scamp to go home to his love ones as she wants a home but Scamp doesn’t listen and gets thrown in the pound but is saved by Angel and Tramp. Scamp learns that family and home are awesome and Angel is made a member of the family.

Scamp and Tramp Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure picture image

Scamp and Tramp

There is the same thing that The Little Mermaid 2 had, the parents lies about their past i.e the first movie and then the child does the same thing that parents did in the first movie. Scamp’s Adventure does feel different as the focus of Lady and the Tramp was both of them and Tramp wasn’t as annoying as Scamp is, which bring me to my next talking point.

Scamp, Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure picture image

Scamp

Scamp is annoying. I couldn’t stand this character. Anytime he’s on screen, I cringed and considering he’s the main character that was a lot. Scott Wolf, who did Scamp’s speaking voice, can not make a decent dog sound for anything. Scamp’s main motivation is that he hates rules and he has a bit of ego for no reason. I hate characters that have zero humility and lack any charm. I will say this, his only saving grace and the only thing that got me through the movie was that he’s a puppy. Puppies are awesome!

Angel and Scamp, Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure

Angel and Scamp

The film also has much goofier, dare I say cartoony tone unlike the original. The original had drama, a believable romance and charm. The cartoon nature makes the fight at the end feel really forced and contrived.

Angel and Scamp in the almost Bella Notte scene, Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure picture image

Angel and Scamp in the almost Bella Notte scene

Then there is the forced romance between Scamp and Angel, they’re puppies. I don’t buy the romance for a second in fact it creeped me out. They even repeated the Bella Notte scene, though made it silly which was need because they are puppies.

For all intended purposes they’re children. They shouldn’t be singing this song . Why couldn’t they just remain friends, it’s not like the romance really went anywhere, so why did you shoehorn it in the movie?

Scamp, Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure picture image

Scamp

Lady and the Tramp 2: Scamps Adventure just fails as follow up to Lady and the Tramp with crappy new characters, poor style, goofy tone and a creepy romance. Good thing this movie is about puppies or it would have been really unbearable.

Theda Bara as Esmeralda in the 1917 The Darling of Paris picture image

Theda Bara as Esmeralda in the 1917 The Darling of Paris

 

Let’s consider a trend with Lost Films. All the films seem to make Esmeralda the main character. Every film but the 1911 version refereed to Esmeralda in the title and every film but the 1905 version had a prominent actress playing Esmeralda.

Given that most of the films of Hunchback favor Quasimodo as main character would it have made a difference if the four last films were available today? Might have help a little bit considering the 1923 version was originally a star vehicle for Pricilla Dean before Lon Chaney made it his picture. That’s right I think it’s pretty much Chaney’s doing that made the role of Quasimodo the point of focus for the films.  You have to really wonder if the film had been Dean’s movie would  Hunchback have had the same number of films and enjoyed the some film legacy.

It’s just such a interesting trajectory the focus that Hunchback films have taken, first focusing on the young and sometimes tragic Gypsy Dancer to the deformed often tragic hunchback. And when you consider the first four films were all Esmeralda based till Chaney changed it you have to really blame Chaney for it  seeing as he had a lot to do with  the 1923 version.

Howver there is at least ONE existing films version is known for the actress who plays Esmeralda.

Next Hunchback version the 1997 version called Hunchback and commonly known as the Salma Hayek version

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda, 1997 Hunchback of Notre Dame, picture image

Salma Hayek as Esmeralda, 1997 Hunchback of Notre Dame

 

The last lost Hunchback film was made a year before the Lon Chaney version in 1922. It was called Esmeralda and was directed Edwin J Collins. It was the first British version. It starred stage trained British actress, Dame Sybil Throndike as Esmeralda and stage actor Booth Conway as Quasimodo. Frollo was played by Annesley Healy and Phoebus by Arthur Kingsley.

Sybil Thorndike

Dame Sybil Thorndike

Throndike was a distinguished actress who played many  various roles like Lady Macbeth, Lady Dedlock and Hester Prynne to name a few. Thorndike, however was nearly 40 when she played Esmeralda and not a typical classical beauty. So one might think she got the role due her established film career but she had only started acting in films a year prior in 1921. The thought is that this movie was based on one her plays, which speaks to her acting skills. Esmeralda however is not one of her seminal films roles. Little else is known about this movie.

The Little Mermaid II; Return to the Sea picture image

The Little Mermaid II; Return to the Sea

The Little Mermaid is a sequel to the 1989 movie The Little Mermaid, wait that’s not right, The Little Mermaid II; Return to the Sea is a copy of the 1989 movie The Little Mermaid, wait, I mean it’s a sequel. That’s it, it’s a sequel. It’s not a copy because it has a penguin and walrus in it and not because it’s the same plot as the first one.

Melody with her locket, The Little Mermaid II; Return to the Sea picture image

Melody with her locket

The plot is pretty much the first movie just with Ariel’s daughter, Melody, but instead of being a shore-o-phile, little Melody is sea-o-phile. Pretty much this love stems from their parents forbidding them from having any contact with said place.

In the Little Mermaid, it made sense, in Return to Sea, Ursula’s crazy Sister (I hate you so much movie), threatens the baby Melody and vanishes, so Ariel builds a wall to keep Melody out of the sea and then lies to her kid about her origins. This is stupid. Melody, who is a little awkward around her peers and feeling betrayed by her parents runs off after finding a keepsake with her name on her it, a gift from Triton.

This where Ursula’s crazy sister, Morgana, comes in and lies to her, turns her into a mermaid and tricks her into get Triton’s Trident. Fight then ensues, Morgana gets turned into a popsicle and yay big dumb wall goes bye bye and everyone is happy.

Ariel and Melody, The Little Mermaid II; Return to the Sea picture image

Ariel and Melody

Let’s talk about the characters, Ariel is now Triton. Melody is Ariel and Morgana is Ursula. The other characters are sort of there too. Eric is there too, I mean he never had a personality other than being nice so he is the same. It’s very annoying that any time a Disney character has a child they are either the copy of their parents except that they gravitates towards the opposite or they are a lame plot device.

Morgana and Melody, The Little Mermaid II; Return to the Sea picture image

Morgana and Melody

A little bit more on Morgana. Cut the crap movie, this is Ursula 2.0 and by the film’s own admission, it’s a downgrade. For fuck sake she has the same voice actress. Anyway, Not-Ursula, I mean, Morgana’s mom liked Ursula better because Ursula was better at magic. Her inferiority complex is so bad that when she has all the powers of the sea, she makes people bow to her, not turn them in kelp. Yeah, this villain is dumb. Though to be fair Triton had all the power of sea and he couldn’t find her or kill her when he has clear shot at her at the beginning. I bet if they could have figure out how bring Ursula back from the dead this movie would have it but that would have required at creative thought so crazy sister, who isn’t that crazy.

Ariel and Melody, The Little Mermaid II; Return to the Sea picture image

Ariel and Melody

Then there is Melody who differs a little bit from Ariel, in that she feels like she doesn’t fit in as an ordinary girl, so she too has a bit of inferiority complex compare to Ariel whom Melody deems as perfect.

First off, Melody is princess she is not ordinary. She should be more concerned that people are pretending to like her. I guess people from where these people live, the 12 year olds are more honest. I don’t even know.

Melody with Tip and Dash, The Little Mermaid II; Return to the Sea picture image

Melody with Tip and Dash

Speaking of which, where the fuck is this located? I mean these characters go back and forth to Arctic conditions but where the bulk of the characters live seems temperate.

But what REALLY hurts my head are the animals seen in the Arctic, we have Narwhals, Penguins, a Sea Turtle, a Walrus, a Baleen Whale and a Hammerhead shark. Narwhals live in the Arctic, Penguins live Antarctica, Sea Turtles inhabit everywhere but the Arctic, Walruses dwell in the Northern Hemisphere, Baleen Whales migrate so pass and Hammerhead sharks like off every coasts every but not in the cold water of the poles.

FUCK YOU MOVIE. Especially since you have the gall to team up a Walrus and Penguin as Melody side-kicks, Tip and Dash, not sure which one is which and I don’t care. They are annoying to boot. The lack of attention to animals habitat reeks of laziness.

Melody doing the Part of your World flip, The Little Mermaid II; Return to the Sea picture image

Melody doing the Part of your World flip

Then to make this movie sooooooooo much worse, this movies uses lots of visual and lines from the original movie. Here are three;

– The shot of Melody shooting to the surface after searching for shells is exactly the same as the shot of Ariel’s resurfacing after she was transformed into a human by Ursula.
– When Ariel discovers Melody’s visit to the sea, she says “You deliberately disobeyed me,” the same line King Triton delivers to Ariel when he discovers her visited to the surface.
– Melody does a back flip through the water while singing “For a Moment”, which is the exact same movement Ariel did while singing “Part of that World”.

 

Melody, The Little Mermaid II; Return to the Sea picture image

Melody

These references make Little Mermaid II: Return to The Sea feel so lazy and with plot being so rehashed that characters even know it, it just makes a million times worse. Was there any effort put in to this? I mean I think one has to work hard to be this lazy. So maybe?