Add a Review

  • You could tell this movie had it's heart in the right place, but just about everything else tells you this movie was slapped together without regard for visual appeal or even a good message for kids.

    If you listen to the "director's commentary" (you'd think it would be a director's track, but instead it's only a 3-minute interview), they explain how this is the first time anyone on the team had done a computer-animated cartoon before, especially the B-movie director. And while this may have been cute as a bunch of student projects tied together, the whole mess just doesn't belong.

    Can't be called a sequel if it has nothing to do with the first, can it?
  • I grew up watching the original 1964 Rudolph clay-mation special.......it is an almost perfect Christmas special with great voices, songs and magic.......... This 2001 version is soooooo painful I coughed up my egg nog.........the music is so sappy.........the dialogue painful.........after a few minutes you just wish the big hairy snowman would eat up the rest of the characters and call it a day........ This was just a quick money making scheme........and it probably worked........the computer graphics are awful....... STAY AWAY.........not even worth renting........it will give you nightmares..........
  • BEWARE OF FALSE REVIEWS & REVIEWERS. SOME REVIEWERS HAVE ONLY ONE REVIEW TO THEIR NAME. NOW WHEN ITS A POSITIVE REVIEW THAT TELLS ME THEY WERE INVOLVED WITH THE MOVIE. IF ITS A NEGATIVE REVIEW THEN THEY MIGHT HAVE A GRUDGE AGAINST THE FILM . NOW I HAVE REVIEWED OVER 300 HOLIDAY FILMS & SPECIALS. I HAVE NO AGENDA.

    This was a major disappointment to me upon my viewing. I grew up watching the original and it has been a Christmas Tradition for many for years. I was excited to see that they made a sequel to the beloved Holiday Classic. However instead of expanding and growing the characters they just re-hash the same problems that Rudolph and Hermie the elf had in the first one.

    In this film Rudolph, not satisfied with being a "novelty act" performing tricks with his nose, travels with Hermey to the Island of Misfit Toys to give King Moonracer a root canal. A storm sends Rudolph and Hermey to Castaway Cove where Rudolph considers having his nose made more normal-looking by a hippopotamus named Queen Camilla. However, Hermey doesn't feel that the change would sit well with Clarice, who is also being taught to fly. Meanwhile, the evil Toy Taker is stealing all of the toys from the island, including Santa's workshop, claiming that he's saving them from the inevitable fact that children eventually outgrow their toys and throw them away. Rudolph has a plan to foil the Toy Taker's plan by disguising themselves as toys.

    This all sounds promising but most of this happens in the last 20 minutes of the film. The rest is just filler. Worse yet it is filler with BAD SONGS!

    Sad that makers of this film were only doing this as a money grab. Had they wanted to create something with more heart then we would have gotten a better film.
  • take over the animation house, this is what one can expect. I'm embarrassed to say that I was in a hurry and picked this up thinking it was the original 1964 Rudolph. I had thought that the cover had changed and there were now "special features" on it. This is nothing like the original. It is actually a pointless little bit of fluff.
  • Rudolph travels to the island of misfit toys to help the elf dentist treat the lion toy. As they sail back they get caught in a storm and meet the Hippo Queen who offers to fix Rudolph's nose if he wants it done. While he is away The Toy Taker raids Santa's toy warehouse and takes all the toys. Rudolph sets out to find the Toy Taker and get all the toys back in time for Christmas by using the island of misfit toys as a trap to draw him out.

    Dear Lord but this is one cheap nasty little cartoon! Ignore the actors listed in the cast list - just because they managed to pay a few big names for a day and a half's voice work doesn't mean this film is any good. The plot is a reasonable attempt to draw as many films out of Rudolph as possible and, on paper, is a reasonable sting operation but the delivery is awful and ruins anything that might have been called potential.

    The godawful songs are part of the problem - they seem to happen after every few lines of dialogue all the way through. It makes it impossible to bear - it really is awful stuff. The animation is also pretty bad. That might seem a bit unfair considering it looks OK and is computer animation, but it is the sort of animation you get in cut scenes on average games on your PC. The camera moves very slowly, the characters cannot move very fast and none of them are lip-synched at all!

    The fancy voices do nothing at all to improve it. Dreyfuss does some rubbish Snowman narrator but Jamie Lee Curtis dons a horrible accent to do a hippo queen! (was she trying to hide her identity from shame?). Moranis has an OK character visually but he does nothing with it and the absurd songs and voice only serve to the character of any menace he had before he spoke.

    Overall I can only advise that you do not make the mistake that I made by watching this. No matter how demanding your children get, don't use this film to placate them - making them sit facing the wall for an hour would be preferable.
  • I will start by saying that my 4 year old son really does like this movie... that is the only positive point.

    The animation is HORRIBLE - no texturing, very poor lighting, polygon intrusions, etc. Not even 2nd rate animation.

    The music and songs are atrocious - I cannot believe that the writers actually allowed them to use their real names on this. Then again, composers cannot take a Smithy.

    The characters have been tarnished, stained, battered and bruised - hopefully this movie will soon be forgotten and the original Rudolph will regain its former glory.
  • In the last couple of years there has been a marketing bonanza on the original Rudolph the Red nose Reindeer. You can buy just about anything from the original at Christmas time (Action Figures, plush toys, Bobbleheads, Ornaments, Wrapping Paper, Tree Skirts, Magnets, etc.).

    This movie just came out so that the makers could get more money off the Rudolph frenzy.

    First, I would say the worst thing about this movie was the soundtrack. They were all new songs and they were all terrible. I just looked at my wife and we were both cringing. I didn't even feel like a majority of the songs were even christmasy just stupid buddy songs. Maybe I am missing something maybe they made this movie for kids because the music was like something out of a Barney episode. Terrible!

    The Animation was not the same as the first. The first was puppet. This one was a rehashed computer animated flick. And the computer animation was some of the poorest computer animation I have seen.

    The characters in this movie were the same as from the last Rudolph but for some reason I found them annoying in this movie as opposed to cute in the first one. There were three new characters and they were not interesting or likable. You can tell that whoever made this movie did not get what the other christmas specials were all about. A talking annoying Hippo? In the North Pole? Let me ask you does that sound like something you would see in the first movie? The makers of this just wanted to make a few bucks and do no research. Everyone of the christmas specials had a narrator. The narrator would be an animated version of the person who is providing the voice: Burl Ives as the snowman in the first Rudolph, Fred Astaire in Santa Claus is Coming to Town, Jimmy Duartee in the first Frosty, Andy Griffith in the second Frosty, others include Ethel Merman, Shirley Booth, and Red Skelton. But for this one Richard Dryfus was just a boring snowman. The snowman looked nothing like Richard. This seems minor but just goes to show that there really is no similarity to the originals except that rights to the characters were purchased by the makers of this film. The story line is not in the same vain at all.

    All in all pretty poor. If you must see this do not buy it like I did. Wait for it to come on tv or if you must, rent it.

    I better recommendation would be to watch little known sequels: Rudolph's Shiny New Year or Rudolph and Frosty's Christmas in July.
  • It has always amazed me that it took so long to see a sequel to the classic Rudolph animation. It took so long that the Hollywood world of 3D automated graphics took over as happens so often. This movie bore little resemblance to the original. It didn't even feel like Christmas. Seemed like they licensed the characters and just turned it over to a CGI house. Very poor. No plot, no interesting characters. What was the deal with the kite?? If I had bought this movie, I would have demanded my money back. Fortunately, we just checked it out at the library. This is the first time I've ever seen my 8 year old want to walk away from an animation!
  • Best film ever, should have won all the Oscars of 2013. The plot is heartwarming if a little dreadful but there are no plot holes just a bit of stupid stuff. The romance between Rudolph and the female reindeer is the greatest love story since Twilight and the reindeers are far more attractive than Kristen Stewart and Cedric Diggory, but it is missing a good ol' shark boy. The emotion of the film is incredibkr. Throughout I swung from happy to sad to wanting to murder all the parents who didn't believe in Santa, but don't worry I managed to curb my urges and I only have two bodies in my freezer. The bad guy of this film is really on thanos levels of power. And the dynamic between him and the protagonist Rudolph is reminiscent of the brilliant performances shown in the dark Knight between batman and Batmans cape. The island of misfit toys is a brilliant location to shoot on, and visually it's really on par with Avatar, Blade Runner 2049, or even AQUAMAN!!!!!!!!!!!! I also genuinely could feel the emotion of the misfit toys who really felt abandoned which really resonated with me because once when I was 6 I had this balloon and I let go and it abandoned me and I've been scarred ever since. People often say that this generation are sheltered but nothing is being done to help those suffering from balloon related illnesses and it's really a disgrace, Donald Trump really needs to get his priorities in line.
  • ^Sarek^16 September 2002
    My 2-year-old is watching it at the moment in the other room -- and it's September.

    The lyrics to the songs are complex to the point that I wonder how the actors got through them without switching to their normal voices, but I thought they were quite good, despite that.

    The animation is not up to Shrek's standards, but would we want it to be? Photo-realistic animation would just detract from the story. As it is, the animation reminds me enough of the original stop-motion so that this indeed feels like a sequel.

    The voice acting is marvelous: Rudolph and Hermey sound like they did in the original, and the other actors drop neatly into place around them.

    As commented earlier, this takes the characters forward, instead of just repeating the identical behaviors in a different plot.

    So, see it. You may find it a waste of time, but it's very much a mileage-may-vary thing, rather than a this-is-a-waste-of-celluloid thing.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This movie captures the horrors of a hypercapitalistic society like no other. Set in a dystopian world where the neoliberal Santa Claus controls the proletariat, the flow of goods, as well as the free press (only North Pole newspaper) and a world where the waste of resources runs rampant, we see the simple-hearted and empty-headed Rudolph fighting for capitalism and against the bolshewik revolutionary Toy Taker, who is trying to return humanity to its natural state of communism. Sadly, in an ending reminiscent of 1984 and other dystopian novels, the only person able of seeing through the gruels of society is captured and is forced to submit to the capitalistic reality. With further criticisms of religion (there exists a mapping between the seven main characters and the seven deadly sins) as well as showcasing the concept of commodity fetishism from "das Kapital", the film turns out to be an amazing introduction to the Marxist philosophy for children 8 and under. 10/10.
  • The 1964 film is a timeless Christmas classic, something that the whole family can watch again and again and find something new every time. Beautiful to look at, with lovely music, a terrific voice cast and an engaging story and characters, it enthralled with me ever since I was little(I am 17 now)and I still love it now. I did think the 1998 movie was sweet and above average, but it isn't as good as the 1964 version. However, this movie perceived as a sequel to the 1964 film is a bit of a mess. It has its heart in the right place and has an interesting premise, but in terms of execution it was ultimately disappointing.

    Let's start with the few pros this movie had. It does mean well, and not completely heartless. It could very well be a decent movie for kids, if not for adults. I admit it, I liked this movie as a kid, but things have changed since. I really liked the idea of the story, about a Toy Taker taking toys and trying to spoil Christmas, and Rudolph trying to save the day. The incidental music was decent, if not particularly memorable.

    Unfortunately, as much as I wanted to like this movie, everything else ranged to poor to absolutely horrible. While I liked the idea of the story, it was executed horribly. It took a long time to get going, and there are parts in the middle half where next to nothing happens. Need I say that there are a lot of disconnected scenes that are seemingly irrelevant to the plot? Also there doesn't seem to be any connection to the 1964 movie other than the characters' names. The dialogue wasn't any better, a vast majority of it was most uninspiring and entirely forgettable. And there are more clichés in the script alone than you can count.

    Another con was the animation. I just want to say that I don't think the computer animation is quite as bad as it was in Doogal, which for me is an absolute disgrace of an animated film anyway, despite the exceptional cast. However, that isn't saying much. The character movement is very robotic, the camera work is disappointingly slow and the actual colours are extremely flat and dull. But I am in complete agreement with anybody who says the worst part was the songs. Almost all of them were absolutely horrible. Some truly plodding and unmemorable melodies and truly crass lyrics. The only song I came close to liking was the Toy Taker's song; then again I tend to root for the villain's songs in movies.

    And what have I forgotten? Ah, yes the voice cast. Seriously there are some truly talented actors here, however they just couldn't do anything with the material they were given. I like Richard Dreyfuss, but his snowman narrator, in comparison to the brilliant Burl Ives who voiced him so wonderfully in the 1964 film, was boring and not benevolent enough. Kathaleen Barr as Rudolph... she is a talented voice actress, and acquitted herself well as the voice of Rudolph in the 1998 movie. But I felt as though it wasn't Kathaleen Barr here, her voice was I don't know... too bolshy here. And while I found Rudolph caring and genuinely cute in the 1964 and 1998 films, I am really sorry but I didn't care for him here. Jamie Lee Curtis; now she deserved better. Bad material and a close-to-embarrassing accent just doesn't cut it Jamie Lee. Garry Chalk does his best, but his Santa wasn't merry or cheery enough, John Goodman voiced him marvellously in the 1998 film. And then Rick Moranis, talk about disappointment. The Toy Taker was merely an okay villain, and great to look at. But vocally Moranis couldn't do anything at all with the character, and there wasn't enough of the character to fully develop properly.

    All in all, despite some redeeming qualities, this was really disappointing, with a very predictable ending might I add? See the 1964 cartoon instead, and you may like the 1998 film. By all means, see this movie if you like it, but I think those who didn't like this movie are fans of the 1964 cartoon and was expecting something new. Sadly that didn't happen. 4/10 Bethany Cox
  • This is an abomination to the entire film industry and a disgrace and insult to the original 1964 classic. The animation looks like some amateur bought a 'CGI For Dummies' book and made it on their home computer. Like other users remarked there is no texture to the images, the graphics look like something out of a cheap children's video game, in which the paper thin plot would have been more suitable for. Gosh, the 30 second AFLAC commercial that spoofed Rudolph had more production value than this 90 minutes of gutter trash! This had so much potential to be a decent sequel but greed, as always in modern movie making, killed it with a slapped together rush job all for the sake of capitalizing off the Rudolph franchise and the integrity of the original!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I picked up this DVD at a garage sale thinking it was the 1964 classic until I read the back when I came home to discover it's a sequel. I looked up the reviews here to see what everyone said about it. I read a lot of negative comments, the most common is the awful songs. I decided to watch it for myself. Regarding the songs, everyone is correct: they are horrendous (which is why it loses a point in my rating), but the cartoon, story and all, surprised the heck out of me! All the lovable characters (including Charlie-in-the-box) from the 1964 classic is brought back with a new set of vocal talents that sound so much like the original cast, it's breath-taking and a little eerie. Yes, it's computer-animated instead of the stop-action of the '64 original, but so much attention, care, and love was given to the details, it doesn't become an issue and it gives this installment its own special charm.

    Even a new twist on the social issue of Rudolph wishing to be like all the other reindeers was thought-provoking, clever, and wonderfully done. The animators even gave new dimension to Rudolph's nonconformity that does not, in my opinion, ruin the charm of the original. If anything, I look at it as Rudolph's nose changing its nature as he grows older, just as children's traits grow and change and evolve as they go through life.

    The writers and animators thought of everything, including Rudolph's continuing relationship with Clarisse, and even giving Hermie the elf a love interest after graduating from Dental School. There are lots of in-jokes galore, including Hermie's vehicle having a modern-day alarm remote that chirps when activated, and there's even a "borrowing" from "Indiana Jones & the Temple of Doom."

    The main crux of the story is a dark character called the Toy Taker who has taken toys everywhere including all of the toys in Santa's workshop, and it's up to Rudolph and his friends to solve the mystery, catch the Toy Taker and return the toys in time for Santa's run on Christmas Eve.

    With all that being said, I heartily recommend you buy or rent this wonderful movie and be in for the treat of your life ESPECIALLY if you're a fan of the 1964 original!!
  • I was not happy with the sequel, although I liked the concept of the movie I did not think it fit well as a sequel to the original. Rudolph and Clarice seem to have reversed the aging process by a few years, also the elf in charge who at the end of the original had a dental appointment with Hermy seems to have forgotten that and is mad and disappointed all over again. I feel the plot and story are fine I just don't think they should have tried to tie it to an almost forty year old classic.
  • Okay... where to start...

    I saw this on TV today, expecting the original Rudolph toon from the '60s. Quickly found out this wasn't the same thing.

    The first thing that's apparent is that this is not a Rankins-Bass production; that production house's distinctive magic is definitely missing. However, this film does one thing that the official Rankins-Bass sequels ("Rudolph's Shiny New Year" and "Rudolph and Frosty's Christmas in July") failed to do: bring back the characters we know and love. Hermie and Yukon Cornelius are finally back.

    It's not clear exactly when the story is supposed to take place, except that clearly some amount of time has passed since Christmastown last graced the small screen. Yet for that, Rudolph and Clarice are now pictured as their younger selves instead of the adult versions seen in the latter half of the first film. However, Rankins-Bass's own sequels did pretty much the same thing, so I don't hold that against this newcomer.

    As for the story itself... the way it's introduced is a little kiddie even by 50s-60s standards, but outside of that it's handled pretty well. You can see where the plot is heading from a mile off, but I suppose the young audience these films target might not connect the dots right away... Anyway, it's a heartfelt story with a message of the same quality.

    The graphics are primitive by today's standards and maybe even by the standards of 2001 when the film was produced. You get used to it quick enough, and when it comes down to it they don't need too much horsepower to recreate the simple designs of the original puppets. One gripe I have is that the reindeer's fur has no texture. It's just a solid color. My main problem with the graphics is how much more work was put into those of the new characters than those of the old. Queen Camila is a prime example of this. Besides that, the style of the new characters is vastly different from that of the old. It's almost as though they were from two completely different films.

    The voice acting is the best thing this toon has going for it. The original characters' new voice actors imitated their predecessors to an amazing degree of accuracy. Cornelius's voice gets a little bit too high as the movie goes on... but is still more intact than you'd think. It's forgivable considering that Cornelius's voice with its raspy, grunty qualities probably destroys the vocal chords of whoever attempts it much like the voice of Yosemite Sam. Clarice sounds almost nothing like her previous incarnation, but one does have to consider that her original voice was probably the actress's natural timbre as opposed to Yukon, Hermey and Santa's voices which were effected to serve the character. As such her voice is not as easy to imitate. Hermey, Rudolph, Santa and the original Misfit Toys are spot-on. The elf foreman and King Moonracer are close enough (though the latter is a bit awkward). As for the new voices, not much can be said except that they all pretty much fit the character they were assigned to well enough. My only gripe here is that for the Toy Taker they opted to use a different actor for the character's singing, a common practice which I've never been too fond of.

    As for the new characters themselves... Camila feels a bit unneeded at first but is tolerable (except for one particular part of her dance routine), though most would probably disagree with me on that. The new misfit toys have pretty much no point, except for the kite who has brief importance.

    And then... the songs. The song for the Island of Misfit Toys is about as pleasant to listen to as construction machines in the morning when you're trying to sleep. I like all the other songs though. They're not masterpieces and, let's face it, forgettable. Likable but not memorable. The best one would probably be the Toy Taker's song.

    In summary... The effort alone is worthy of an A. They really tried hard to stay true to the original, and for trying to do that more than forty years later they did about as good as it would ever be possible for anyone to do. The new stuff clashed with the old in some places but still blended enough. It's still a nice toon to watch with the family. It's also a good source of laughs for those who are willing to take the missed marks with a sense of humor. It's not in my list of favorite films by any stretch, but I'll still enjoy watching it around Christmas time in the years to come. I give it a C, which is more than I can give some other movies' sequels.
  • This is a video that is worth buying. The story remains true to the charm and philosophy of the original. All the characters return except for one, the late Burl Ives. Replacing him is Richard Dreyfuss as a snowman reporter for the only North Pole Newspaper. Suprisingly, there are no unexplainable changes in characters or settings that so often accompany sequels. This is the first sequel I have seen that makes full use of the character development of the first. Yukon Corneluis is working his peppermint mine, Hermey has gone to Dental School and developed a crush for an unusual young lady, and Rudolph and Clarice are still in puppy love.

    It is a great movie for young and old alike.
  • LT-1023 December 2001
    This was a lot better than expected. The story does a great job of showing where the characters from the original are now. The songs were catchy and fun, a rare thing for other movies of this type. Entertaining film that is worth a watch, its down-right FUN!
  • katwarrior12323 September 2010
    Warning: Spoilers
    I really liked this film at the age I am now (14... don't ask) but I remember as a child hating the end... only Goodtimes entertainment (SPOILERS) would end the film with the Toy Taker being a Teddy Bear named Mr. Cuddles. Only them! Of course at the age of 5 I hated quite a lot of films finding them too soft (you know, always ending with... good guy being human and bad guy being something like a tiger that can talk and stand on two-legs with big claws and teeth and you're like, "A human could never beat something with that kind of ferocity and weapons!") aka Toy Taker--- is beaten by a man riding a reindeer who also has a lasso-rope... P.S. the reindeer is tiny compared to the man...

    But other than that I did like the songs and general story line and, for it's time, the animation was actually pretty good! The real heart from the original stayed with it although it was...let's say... a little cheesy as most young children's cartoons (or more CGI) have turned out to be from this time.

    I could never quite understand why it was called 'Rudolph and the Island of Misfit Toys' because, really, the island and it's occupants had very little to do with the story. The Toy Taker was- quote from my mother- a little scary and gruesome for kids'.

    Er... let's see... at the time it was being competed with such brilliant classics as Thomas and the Magic Railroad and the Land Before Time VIII (8) The Big Freeze (DTV- Direct To Video) and other classics I have probably forgotten about but will kick myself later for forgetting to mention! But my over-all review was... GREAT! SUPER! STUPENDOUS! anything along those lines.
  • Though this is movie does pale to the beautiful and timeless story which Rankin Bass created in the original....

    This new movie is a modern story that children from this era can watch and enjoy.

    I do think that the computer generated graphics could have been made to be textured in a way that made this cartoon look better.

    But overall it's a sweet story with a couple of good song and dance routines.

    It made my 8 children happy and it was time well spent enjoying characters which I love.
  • phoebemonkman16 December 2020
    10/10
    Yes
    Warning: Spoilers
    Best movie I've ever seen in my life. I'm not lying I love this movie.
  • I remember watching this when I was a young child, haven't watched it since. I didn't even think it was real.
  • This review may never be seen because at this time because this C-grade film is now 19 years old. Older than me who is now officially an adult and I would really like to voice my particular generations view. I adored this movie as a kid, my fondest memories was watching this for the first time on ABC and begging my mom to record it again the following years. After a while it stopped rerunning because as many users have established in the comments, the CGI was in its beginning phases back in the early 2000's and was really clunky to the eye. The plot itself is what I deem as an adult, subpar, at best, but I can still remember every tune to every song, the toy taker was genuinely eerie and a good character to redeem himself for his motives in the end. As a 5 year old watching this I was captivated by the crappy CGI that was not bad in my eyes, they were a visual form of explaining a messy plot that still had an effect on me as I grew older. Today I made a IMBD account to voice my nostalgic love for this movie in particular. This review may probably never see the light of day to anyone else and is probably lost to the ages but just know, to anyone out there who cares: This movie was a solid 7 because it was never meant for adults, it was meant for kids.
  • Since the animation for that movie was good, I would love to see the storyline of Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer before this sequel came out. Wouldn't it be great to have a remake of the Rankin/Bass 1964 classic in this animation this year around Christmastime? I bet it would be a great trip down memory lane.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This Title steels so much from other famous stories. In fact it rips not Only the Goodwill Feelings we all have from the Original Rudolph Special but it also rips off "The Wizard of Oz" and "Alice in Wonderland". Now with that being said this is still a fun title to watch if you have little children. In fact I highly recommend this title if you do because the film (as bad as it gets at times) still has a positive message about self acceptance. Now what is also a major distraction is also the fact the the Animation seems very cheap and it lacks the charm of the Classic Animated Original. What is also nice to hear is the fact that it seems like most of the original voice cast returns and that makes the who movie worth watching. I recommend this for parents who will watch this with their Santa Claus believing children. Kids 9 and above (As well as adults with no children) will be bored.
An error has occured. Please try again.