The original Lady and the Tramp is a truly beautiful film, with beautiful animation and songs. And the Bella Notte scene is one of my all time favourite Disney moments. The sequel is decent, compared to Cinderella 2 and Jungle Book 2, but I would be lying if I said it wasn't inferior. The animation is very nice and colourful. The backgrounds in general are lovely, and very bright vibrant colours. (But the original's animation was better) The songs are fairly decent, above average might I say, and the music was beautiful. The opening song was lovely, and Angel and Scamp's duet was so sweet. I also would like to congratulate Roger Bart and Susan Egan for their wonderful singing on the soundtrack. The junkyard song was the only song I found forgettable, but I will say right now, that the original's songs are much more memorable. Scamp and Angel are very likable protagonists, and the voice acting from Scott Wolff especially, Jeff Benett, Alyssa Milano and Chazz Palminteri is superb. However, I did find the story in general to be weak and predictable, and the dogcatcher was an annoying and unnecessary character. I thought the spaghetti scene was very sweet, but Bella Notte from the original brought tears to my eyes, and I didn't necessarily find that here. The writing is okay, my real problem with it though was that you can't help thinking you've heard it all before. In conclusion, decent sequel, but see the original film for the full emotional punch. 6/10 Bethany Cox
61 Reviews
Disappointed!
bookworm-94 March 2001
To be fair I love Lady and the Tramp so I expected alot. But this story doesnt even come close to the magic of the original.
They very cheaply reuse bits of the original story right down to the infamous Spaghetti dinner. They created a former "best friend" for Tramp and didnt use any of his original gang. Rusty and Jacques are barely around. Not to mention that Tramp completely turned his back on his old ways. He even lied to his kids saying that he has been a house dog his whole life.
The premise is that the son wants to be a "wild dog". Basically he is like a defiant teenager. I have aleast two suggestions on what would have been a better story. I dread the Cinderella sequel!
My 5 year old nephew loves it but for anyone that grew up on the romance of Lady and her tramp.... skip it!
They very cheaply reuse bits of the original story right down to the infamous Spaghetti dinner. They created a former "best friend" for Tramp and didnt use any of his original gang. Rusty and Jacques are barely around. Not to mention that Tramp completely turned his back on his old ways. He even lied to his kids saying that he has been a house dog his whole life.
The premise is that the son wants to be a "wild dog". Basically he is like a defiant teenager. I have aleast two suggestions on what would have been a better story. I dread the Cinderella sequel!
My 5 year old nephew loves it but for anyone that grew up on the romance of Lady and her tramp.... skip it!
It's alright. Just alright.
bad_beth6665 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Lady and the Tramp II is one of the Disney sequels which I keep as "okay" in my books. They could have done a lot worse (like what they did with The Little Mermaid sequel..horrible!) and this one stands as being a pretty okay sequel.
Some problems about this sequel are the totally rushed and not needed romance between Angel and Scamp. It was tasteless and bland, the duet they share was sweet but did not compare to Bella Notte from the first film.
I also did not like what they did with Tramps character development. Like Simba in Lion King 2, they turned him from a fun loving adult to a cold, serious parent. Tramp used to be a very lovable character in the first film, chasing chickens and avoiding dogcatchers. But what does he say when Scamp runs through the lounge with a pillow in his jaws? "Now come on son, you're gonna make a mess!'
It's just unfamiliar of our old Disney characters to change personality so quickly. Lady had little to no dialogue, which is a sad change from the first film where we learned so much about her.
But all in all, it's an alright sequel. Learning about Tramp's past was interesting and the film still kept some of the old settings from the original. Disney fans should see, but if you are not a Lady and the Tramp fan, this may not appeal to you.
Some problems about this sequel are the totally rushed and not needed romance between Angel and Scamp. It was tasteless and bland, the duet they share was sweet but did not compare to Bella Notte from the first film.
I also did not like what they did with Tramps character development. Like Simba in Lion King 2, they turned him from a fun loving adult to a cold, serious parent. Tramp used to be a very lovable character in the first film, chasing chickens and avoiding dogcatchers. But what does he say when Scamp runs through the lounge with a pillow in his jaws? "Now come on son, you're gonna make a mess!'
It's just unfamiliar of our old Disney characters to change personality so quickly. Lady had little to no dialogue, which is a sad change from the first film where we learned so much about her.
But all in all, it's an alright sequel. Learning about Tramp's past was interesting and the film still kept some of the old settings from the original. Disney fans should see, but if you are not a Lady and the Tramp fan, this may not appeal to you.
We've now gone too far
aleusong18 May 2004
This was the first film from Walt's era to get sequel treatment. Walt has mentioned countless times how much he disliked sequels. I personally didn't mind sequels from the 90s films such as Return of Jafar and Simba's Pride (Enchanted Xmas, WTF?) But once you take movies from Walt's era you've done more than crossed the line...you've insulted one of the greatest people to have ever lived!
Doesn't anyone remember what Lady and the Tramp was about or who was the star of the movie? Lady of course. What is Lady doing in this sequel? nothing, absolutely nothing she is nothing more than a background character with hardly a voice. The Tramp was a main character yes but Lady deserved more screen and story contribution being as she was part of the title.
This is also part of those parent-son of sequels I am officially sick of. The good news is that there are goodies given that are reminiscent of the original. But let's face it, this was overlly preachy as a puppy has to learn that living a junkyard dog life isn't cool and you gotta stay with your lame family.
Did I say puppy? Well seeing that he's not Tramp's size and voice by an adult...
Don't get me started on the worse part...the music. "Family" drove me insane. This was supposed to be a turn of the century setting and you're putting in pop music...WHY?! BRING BACK PEGGY LEE AND THE MELLOW MEN!
So yes, it was that bad...too much kiddie fare that can be easily ignored
Doesn't anyone remember what Lady and the Tramp was about or who was the star of the movie? Lady of course. What is Lady doing in this sequel? nothing, absolutely nothing she is nothing more than a background character with hardly a voice. The Tramp was a main character yes but Lady deserved more screen and story contribution being as she was part of the title.
This is also part of those parent-son of sequels I am officially sick of. The good news is that there are goodies given that are reminiscent of the original. But let's face it, this was overlly preachy as a puppy has to learn that living a junkyard dog life isn't cool and you gotta stay with your lame family.
Did I say puppy? Well seeing that he's not Tramp's size and voice by an adult...
Don't get me started on the worse part...the music. "Family" drove me insane. This was supposed to be a turn of the century setting and you're putting in pop music...WHY?! BRING BACK PEGGY LEE AND THE MELLOW MEN!
So yes, it was that bad...too much kiddie fare that can be easily ignored
Like Scamp and his dad, this film is rough around the edges, but has a heart of gold underneath.
Figaro-827 February 2001
Warning: Spoilers
*minor spoilers*
You know, it's getting to the point where Walt Disney Television Animation might just as well be called Walt Disney Sequel Animation. These sequels range from excellent ("Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas" and the fantastic "Lion King II: Simba's Pride") to horrible ("The Return of Jafar"). (This is, of course, my personal opinion.) Now Disney brings us their latest sequel. "Scamp's adventure," and while it is flawed, it is still entertaining.
The quality of animation is not up to par with Disney Feature Animation; still, the animators do a good job of bringing the characters to life. Lady and Tramp have not aged a day since 1955. Trusty still talks about his sense of smell and "Ol' Reliable," and Jock still gives him grief about it. There's a nice fight between Tramp and a huge dog in the dog pound, and once again we are treated to a spaghetti dinner with the two romantic leads (though it is highly doubtful that this will become a classic scene like its predecessor.)
I really don't care for most of the songs (though Roger Bart and Susan Egan--the singing voices of Scamp and Angel--sing their parts very nicely). Both Melissa Manchester and Norman Gimbel have done much better work in the past. Danny Troob's score is okay, but nothing memorable. And some of the junkyard gang seem like excess baggage; that is, they really don't do much.
The voice work, on the other hand, is quite good. While I don't like Jeff Bennett as the dogcatcher, he is very good as Tramp. Chazz Palminteri does a nice job as Buster, leader of the junkyard gang, and Alyssa Milano gives what may be her best performance as Angel. Then there is Scamp (who is the spitting image of his dad). He is voiced to PERFECTION by Scott Wolf. Wolf does a superb job of showing Scamp's wild streak and his soft side.
All in all, while "Scamp's Adventure" is flawed, it still makes for rather entertaining viewing. It is my hope, however, that Walt Disney Television Animation will turn their attention to more original material for their future releases.
You know, it's getting to the point where Walt Disney Television Animation might just as well be called Walt Disney Sequel Animation. These sequels range from excellent ("Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas" and the fantastic "Lion King II: Simba's Pride") to horrible ("The Return of Jafar"). (This is, of course, my personal opinion.) Now Disney brings us their latest sequel. "Scamp's adventure," and while it is flawed, it is still entertaining.
The quality of animation is not up to par with Disney Feature Animation; still, the animators do a good job of bringing the characters to life. Lady and Tramp have not aged a day since 1955. Trusty still talks about his sense of smell and "Ol' Reliable," and Jock still gives him grief about it. There's a nice fight between Tramp and a huge dog in the dog pound, and once again we are treated to a spaghetti dinner with the two romantic leads (though it is highly doubtful that this will become a classic scene like its predecessor.)
I really don't care for most of the songs (though Roger Bart and Susan Egan--the singing voices of Scamp and Angel--sing their parts very nicely). Both Melissa Manchester and Norman Gimbel have done much better work in the past. Danny Troob's score is okay, but nothing memorable. And some of the junkyard gang seem like excess baggage; that is, they really don't do much.
The voice work, on the other hand, is quite good. While I don't like Jeff Bennett as the dogcatcher, he is very good as Tramp. Chazz Palminteri does a nice job as Buster, leader of the junkyard gang, and Alyssa Milano gives what may be her best performance as Angel. Then there is Scamp (who is the spitting image of his dad). He is voiced to PERFECTION by Scott Wolf. Wolf does a superb job of showing Scamp's wild streak and his soft side.
All in all, while "Scamp's Adventure" is flawed, it still makes for rather entertaining viewing. It is my hope, however, that Walt Disney Television Animation will turn their attention to more original material for their future releases.
No Lady nor Tramp: Chav's Troublesome Runaway
chrisbishop50003 April 2008
If regarded as an independent feature I can't say it's too bad at all but from where I'm standing this sequel and the original "Lady and the Tramp" don't agree with each other! They are two completely different movies with different style, different voice personalities, different narratives and about the only thing that they share with each other is the visuals (e.g. the town-house of Jim Dear, Darling, Lady and Tramp) and none of those have changed.
If you're seeking any kind of continuity years after the release of the original for those memorable songs like "Bella Notte" and "The Siamesse Cats Song" this sequel won't give you any at all! Just about every song has a little pop to it and those good old characters like Jock and Trusty, Jim Dear and Darling and Aunt Sarah and her cats may well be seen but they're seeming to be somehow replaced by new characters, not to mention Peg not appearing at all, whose voices are quite annoying. Even Lady and Tramp don't appear often enough and as for Scamp?! He is so spoilt! And treats his father Tramp with utter disrespect, then runs away with no remorse even after hearing how much he's being missed at home! And they called his shameless getaway an adventure! I'd say Scott Wolf truly brought out the abusive bad boy in Scamp wiping out the typical cute Disney animal. Even the old characters just drive you mad in this; Trusty sounds like Goofy sick in bed, Jock (Jeff-stupid-Bennett) - and his VOICE - sound neither Scottish nor worth hearing! Zap him off as far as possible to free our poor ears from his voice and as for the dumb, feather-brained, EXASPERATING JUNKYARD DOGS!!!!!! Somebody put them down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Lady and the Tramp 2" isn't completely bad if you're not already having a tough day but I expect a lot more charm from a sequel to a true classic - Scamp is chavvy, so is his girlfriend Angel and there is a feeble storyline. Still, I think you should try it at least once because, as I say, there are much worse movies around.
If you're seeking any kind of continuity years after the release of the original for those memorable songs like "Bella Notte" and "The Siamesse Cats Song" this sequel won't give you any at all! Just about every song has a little pop to it and those good old characters like Jock and Trusty, Jim Dear and Darling and Aunt Sarah and her cats may well be seen but they're seeming to be somehow replaced by new characters, not to mention Peg not appearing at all, whose voices are quite annoying. Even Lady and Tramp don't appear often enough and as for Scamp?! He is so spoilt! And treats his father Tramp with utter disrespect, then runs away with no remorse even after hearing how much he's being missed at home! And they called his shameless getaway an adventure! I'd say Scott Wolf truly brought out the abusive bad boy in Scamp wiping out the typical cute Disney animal. Even the old characters just drive you mad in this; Trusty sounds like Goofy sick in bed, Jock (Jeff-stupid-Bennett) - and his VOICE - sound neither Scottish nor worth hearing! Zap him off as far as possible to free our poor ears from his voice and as for the dumb, feather-brained, EXASPERATING JUNKYARD DOGS!!!!!! Somebody put them down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Lady and the Tramp 2" isn't completely bad if you're not already having a tough day but I expect a lot more charm from a sequel to a true classic - Scamp is chavvy, so is his girlfriend Angel and there is a feeble storyline. Still, I think you should try it at least once because, as I say, there are much worse movies around.
"Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure" gets a hi-def transfer but still feels unnecessary
ersinkdotcom10 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Many of the Disney Direct-to-DVD releases feel like they're stretching the source material way past what it was meant to be. Did we really need a sequel to "Cinderella," "Peter Pan," "Beauty and the Beast," and other classic movies that ended with the phrase "
and they lived happily ever after?" These sequels should carry a tag line reading "
But theeen
"
"Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure" is one of those movies. Revisiting it because of the recent Blu-ray release reminded me how gratuitous it feels throughout a short 70-minute running time.
Lady and the Tramp are the proud parents of three female pups and a scrappy dog name Scamp who has inherited a wild streak from his father. When his chain breaks after being sent outside for tearing up the house, Scamp runs off and meets the Junkyard Dogs. Seeking their approval, he goes through the leader's initiation process to become a member of the group. Could a spunky young pup named Angel help change his mind about wanting to live on his own away from his family?
The life lesson is definitely "front-and-center" in "Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure." Everyone needs to be part of a family. Another lesson Tramp gives Scamp is that you're always welcome home because family loves you no matter what. These are great lessons and do need to be emphasized. However, I start to wonder as I'm watching this movie how many orphanages or broken homes the producers of this movie have been to lately.
This isn't a bad movie by any means. The story is well-written and the voice cast performs wonderfully. The weakest points are the songs. They're bland and lackluster. If a Disney film is going to have musical aspirations it has a lot to live up to in the shadow of "Snow White," "Aladdin," and countless others.
Parents will find the "Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure" needless. Their children will no doubt embrace it as much as they did the original. I'd say they have another success on their hands since that's why Disney makes these sequels. Just don't expect older fans of the original to feel the same way.
"Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure" is one of those movies. Revisiting it because of the recent Blu-ray release reminded me how gratuitous it feels throughout a short 70-minute running time.
Lady and the Tramp are the proud parents of three female pups and a scrappy dog name Scamp who has inherited a wild streak from his father. When his chain breaks after being sent outside for tearing up the house, Scamp runs off and meets the Junkyard Dogs. Seeking their approval, he goes through the leader's initiation process to become a member of the group. Could a spunky young pup named Angel help change his mind about wanting to live on his own away from his family?
The life lesson is definitely "front-and-center" in "Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure." Everyone needs to be part of a family. Another lesson Tramp gives Scamp is that you're always welcome home because family loves you no matter what. These are great lessons and do need to be emphasized. However, I start to wonder as I'm watching this movie how many orphanages or broken homes the producers of this movie have been to lately.
This isn't a bad movie by any means. The story is well-written and the voice cast performs wonderfully. The weakest points are the songs. They're bland and lackluster. If a Disney film is going to have musical aspirations it has a lot to live up to in the shadow of "Snow White," "Aladdin," and countless others.
Parents will find the "Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure" needless. Their children will no doubt embrace it as much as they did the original. I'd say they have another success on their hands since that's why Disney makes these sequels. Just don't expect older fans of the original to feel the same way.
Sweet puppy love.
mistershankly23 May 2006
These Disney sequels all have one thing in common, they do not reach up to the high quality as the original did. This is not an exception, the plot is kinda rushed.
But there is great animation, very colorful. And of course, Scamp and Angel are very, very sweet and adorable. I think they make a cuter couple than Lady and the Tramp. The scene where they eat spaghetti and meat balls, is not nearly as well done as the previous one. "Bella Notte" is an excellent song, but I still think Scamp and Angel are more adorable than Lady/Tramp.
I think the chemistry between the two of them is what makes this movie worth watching, it should have been more of them together. Scamp is an innocent, lovely pup with an irresistible face, and Angel is the same, only even more lovely. She has those sparkling, inciting eyes. And when they fall for each other, it only gets sweeter.
This movie is definitely worth watching for those who like Disney romance, the plot is not something worth applauding for.
But there is great animation, very colorful. And of course, Scamp and Angel are very, very sweet and adorable. I think they make a cuter couple than Lady and the Tramp. The scene where they eat spaghetti and meat balls, is not nearly as well done as the previous one. "Bella Notte" is an excellent song, but I still think Scamp and Angel are more adorable than Lady/Tramp.
I think the chemistry between the two of them is what makes this movie worth watching, it should have been more of them together. Scamp is an innocent, lovely pup with an irresistible face, and Angel is the same, only even more lovely. She has those sparkling, inciting eyes. And when they fall for each other, it only gets sweeter.
This movie is definitely worth watching for those who like Disney romance, the plot is not something worth applauding for.
One of My favorite movies.
phenoxrainflower11 July 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I love this movie, I think it's just as good as the original. The fact that he's basically Tramp, is actually really sweet. I'm very happy that they made Angel a part of Their Family. I think it gave a very good lesson about family, and that they love you, and a good lesson on who you hang out with. I definitely recommend this movie if you love animals, and animation.
Not a bad Disney Sequel
Smells_Like_Cheese5 February 2008
I remember the first time I saw Lady and the Tramp, it was one of the first Disney movies to make me cry as a child. It was one of the most romantic films I ever saw, lol, well, I was a kid, so, give me a break, it's still a good love story. So, I figured to go ahead and give the sequel a look and I watched it today and over all, it's a decent sequel that's worth a look. Unfortunately, there are a lot of Disney sequels that really are not worth your while and are pretty cheesy, Lady and the Tramp 2 is typical where as the plot is always the same for every Disney sequel. They always take the plot from the first film and reverse the situation to the kids wanting whatever the parent had in the first film, but Lady and the Tramp 2 has it's moments that are just very sweet.
Pidge and Tramp are living the high life with their masters and 4 kids. 3 kids are girls and they are loving the pampered life of baths, 3 meals a day in a bowl, and a healthy home to live in. But Scamp's the boy that stands out, he wants to be a junk yard dog so badly and be free an wild. Tramp doesn't want that life for him, and certainly to not end up in the pound. But Scamp goes off with a girl dog, Angel, and other junk yard dogs to prove that he's just as tough, but it's a tough world out there and he may not have the chops to survive.
Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure is definitely worth a look, it's not a waste of a sequel. Is it necessary? No, not really, but it's all good clean fun. The animation is colorful and the songs are catchy along with a cute little story that may be predictable, but is always a safe route to go with the kids. It's a cute family movie and is a nice Disney sequel. I would recommend it if you are a fan of the original Lady and the Tramp and also for the kids, it's a good clean cut movie to watch.
5/10
Pidge and Tramp are living the high life with their masters and 4 kids. 3 kids are girls and they are loving the pampered life of baths, 3 meals a day in a bowl, and a healthy home to live in. But Scamp's the boy that stands out, he wants to be a junk yard dog so badly and be free an wild. Tramp doesn't want that life for him, and certainly to not end up in the pound. But Scamp goes off with a girl dog, Angel, and other junk yard dogs to prove that he's just as tough, but it's a tough world out there and he may not have the chops to survive.
Lady and the Tramp II: Scamp's Adventure is definitely worth a look, it's not a waste of a sequel. Is it necessary? No, not really, but it's all good clean fun. The animation is colorful and the songs are catchy along with a cute little story that may be predictable, but is always a safe route to go with the kids. It's a cute family movie and is a nice Disney sequel. I would recommend it if you are a fan of the original Lady and the Tramp and also for the kids, it's a good clean cut movie to watch.
5/10
Adorable,and Romantic
graypawlovesu6 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is excellent!Angel is beautiful and Scamp is adorable!His little yelps when hes scared,and the funniest parts are when:Scamp is caught under the curtain and when Angel and Scamp are singing 'Ive Never Had This Feeling Before'.I totally recommend this movie,its coming out on special edition on June 20.The cover has scamp on a garbage can and Angel underneath the lid.
I just cant explain this movie more than romantic,charming,hilarious,and adorable.The junkyard scenes are funny,all the junkyard dogs have something special.Too funny i laughed,kids will LOVE it.Buy it when it comes out,it has new features!
I just cant explain this movie more than romantic,charming,hilarious,and adorable.The junkyard scenes are funny,all the junkyard dogs have something special.Too funny i laughed,kids will LOVE it.Buy it when it comes out,it has new features!
It's Made for Kids
AngelHonesty8 April 2024
Anyone who loved the original, this dose not compare in anyway. The original was magical and great for all audiences. Lady and the Tramp 2 is very kiddied down. It's about Tramp's son who is pretty much a defiant teenager who wants to do things his own way. Wants to be free from his life at home. We watch as he finds young puppy love, new friends and slowly grows up into a more mature dog. It's a coming of age story.
There are a lot of songs. No real bad guy, even the pound is no longer scary like it was on the original. The love story feels cheap and oddly out of place considering Scamp is a little puppy. It's directed more for a younger audience. I loved watching this movie as a kid, but now as an adult I find it difficult to watch.
There are many plot holes, like the movie is supposed to take place right after the first. We know this because the baby boy is still a baby. Which means Tramp has maybe been off the streets for a year. And yet they have him acting like he's an old man, ten years older. Has completely forgotten the streets and denies ever being a street dog. And it doesn't make sense that the owners kept all the puppies. They would have sold them. The only nice thing about the movie is that they kept the same art style and vibrant colors.
There are a lot of songs. No real bad guy, even the pound is no longer scary like it was on the original. The love story feels cheap and oddly out of place considering Scamp is a little puppy. It's directed more for a younger audience. I loved watching this movie as a kid, but now as an adult I find it difficult to watch.
There are many plot holes, like the movie is supposed to take place right after the first. We know this because the baby boy is still a baby. Which means Tramp has maybe been off the streets for a year. And yet they have him acting like he's an old man, ten years older. Has completely forgotten the streets and denies ever being a street dog. And it doesn't make sense that the owners kept all the puppies. They would have sold them. The only nice thing about the movie is that they kept the same art style and vibrant colors.
Worse than I expected
anicat1221 April 2001
I rented this movie, knowing that it would be bad (i have only seen one good Disney sequel and that was toy story 2), but it went far lower than my expectations. I am a die hard disney fan and i just don't believe in sequels with disney movies. For somebody who didn't grow up with the classics (either watching them when they came out, or renting them since you were born) it's a cute story. I just feel that the plot was dragged out a little too much, and was to predictable. The one thing that annoyed me the most was the voices of the girl children of lady and tramp. They were too high pitched. Although most reviews say that it isn't that bad, i think that if you are a true disney fan, you shouldn't waste your time with this one.
Hopefully Disney won't be making any more sequels to any of the other classics any time soon.
Hopefully Disney won't be making any more sequels to any of the other classics any time soon.
Fantastic!
Leahcurry12 July 2004
Warning: Spoilers
**** Possible Spoilers Ahead *****
I only saw this very recently, and before that I wasn't interested. Like Cinderella 2, this is another sequel to a Disney Classic that I enjoyed. Personally, this is hilarious and heartwarming. I loved it the first time I watched it, and intend to get the movie and soundtrack. The acting is perfect all around. I only wish that the amount of lines everyone got, particularly Mickey Rooney and Jodi Benson (Lady), was more evened out. There seemed to be too many bit parts for the amount of time spent on-screen. Scott Wolf and Alyssa Milano's screen time as Scamp and Angel is fine. Between 60-70 minutes was a bit too short.
What Scamp goes through is so typical of teenagers. It may be hard to believe (Scamp, his sisters, and Angel are small and cute), but they are at least pre-teen. It was also obvious that the songs were sung by adults. Even though Scott Wolf's and Alyssa Milano's talking voices are very appropriate, it would have been tacky for kids or teenagers to sing Scamp's and Angels' songs. An adult gives the songs more flavor, especially the love songs.
The voices couldn't be duplicated exactly, but Jock's and Trusty's were admirable, Lady (done by none other than the "Little Mermaid" Jodi Benson) was pretty good, and Tramp's was good except for his singing.
The opening song "Welcome" was a perfect fit for the Victorian era setting, and I don't care if it is like the opening of "Beauty and the Beast"--I didn't realize it was. "Junkyard Society Rag" was like "He's a Tramp", with its distinct Street Dog sound. However, none of the songs were actually reminiscent of the "quiet" ballads of the original like "La La Lu", but they are somewhat like those of "Beauty and the Beast". No kidding! They are all wonderful.
The filmmakers wanted to duplicate Lady, Tramp, and the setting as much as possible, and they did it admirably. The addition of the storyline to include Buster is a nice touch, and a necessary one. What else could Scamp get involved in but life on the street for it to be a coming-of-age story? It adds not only the Junkyard Dogs, but a slowly developing plot involving Buster's long standing anger toward Tramp (who taught him everything needed to be a street dog but later abandoned him when he falls in love with Lady). Also, Tramp kept his former life a secret from Scamp because that life is not what it is cracked up to be (it took the dogcatcher and being collarless for Scamp to realize how dangerous and dead-end it really was). It only goes to show that even though Scamp felt he was having Rules hammered into him almost constantly, his family loved him, even if they made their share of mistakes, which everyone makes from time to time.
All in all, none of us should expect true duplicates of Disney classics. It's somewhat redundant. "The Little Mermaid", "Aladdin", "Beauty and the Beast", and "The Lion King" are modern classics with modern songs. Disney is still making great films--this is no exception. Maybe some who bash these sequels aren't true Disney fans anyway. If you hate the sequels, let your kids see them. These should be watched by people who are kids at heart. 9/10
I only saw this very recently, and before that I wasn't interested. Like Cinderella 2, this is another sequel to a Disney Classic that I enjoyed. Personally, this is hilarious and heartwarming. I loved it the first time I watched it, and intend to get the movie and soundtrack. The acting is perfect all around. I only wish that the amount of lines everyone got, particularly Mickey Rooney and Jodi Benson (Lady), was more evened out. There seemed to be too many bit parts for the amount of time spent on-screen. Scott Wolf and Alyssa Milano's screen time as Scamp and Angel is fine. Between 60-70 minutes was a bit too short.
What Scamp goes through is so typical of teenagers. It may be hard to believe (Scamp, his sisters, and Angel are small and cute), but they are at least pre-teen. It was also obvious that the songs were sung by adults. Even though Scott Wolf's and Alyssa Milano's talking voices are very appropriate, it would have been tacky for kids or teenagers to sing Scamp's and Angels' songs. An adult gives the songs more flavor, especially the love songs.
The voices couldn't be duplicated exactly, but Jock's and Trusty's were admirable, Lady (done by none other than the "Little Mermaid" Jodi Benson) was pretty good, and Tramp's was good except for his singing.
The opening song "Welcome" was a perfect fit for the Victorian era setting, and I don't care if it is like the opening of "Beauty and the Beast"--I didn't realize it was. "Junkyard Society Rag" was like "He's a Tramp", with its distinct Street Dog sound. However, none of the songs were actually reminiscent of the "quiet" ballads of the original like "La La Lu", but they are somewhat like those of "Beauty and the Beast". No kidding! They are all wonderful.
The filmmakers wanted to duplicate Lady, Tramp, and the setting as much as possible, and they did it admirably. The addition of the storyline to include Buster is a nice touch, and a necessary one. What else could Scamp get involved in but life on the street for it to be a coming-of-age story? It adds not only the Junkyard Dogs, but a slowly developing plot involving Buster's long standing anger toward Tramp (who taught him everything needed to be a street dog but later abandoned him when he falls in love with Lady). Also, Tramp kept his former life a secret from Scamp because that life is not what it is cracked up to be (it took the dogcatcher and being collarless for Scamp to realize how dangerous and dead-end it really was). It only goes to show that even though Scamp felt he was having Rules hammered into him almost constantly, his family loved him, even if they made their share of mistakes, which everyone makes from time to time.
All in all, none of us should expect true duplicates of Disney classics. It's somewhat redundant. "The Little Mermaid", "Aladdin", "Beauty and the Beast", and "The Lion King" are modern classics with modern songs. Disney is still making great films--this is no exception. Maybe some who bash these sequels aren't true Disney fans anyway. If you hate the sequels, let your kids see them. These should be watched by people who are kids at heart. 9/10
Nice, but charmless
Thomas-Musings4 January 2021
Some memorable elements, but nothing compared to the original.
OllieSuave-00713 August 2015
Much of the Disney sequels do not compare to the magic, charm and imagination of the originals and this one is no exception. When you're watching these sequels, sometimes you are left missing the original even more because. even though there is a little bit of nostalgia, the sequel doesn't bring back the quality of the original.
Yet, for this movie, there are some memorable characters, great animation, charming songs and a quick-paced plot, where we get to see Lady and the Tramp's son Scamp, tired of rules he has to follow at home, yearn for the out yonder life and decides to join a carefree group of junkyard dogs.
There is really nothing original in the film and the two title characters, Lady and the Tramp, are not in the movie much. The plot is rushed, which made little room for character development. However, the chemistry between Scamp and Angel was somewhat nice, and the overall family importance theme is touching.
Overall, this film is nice for the kids to enjoy, but adults would probably stick with the original.
Grade C+
Yet, for this movie, there are some memorable characters, great animation, charming songs and a quick-paced plot, where we get to see Lady and the Tramp's son Scamp, tired of rules he has to follow at home, yearn for the out yonder life and decides to join a carefree group of junkyard dogs.
There is really nothing original in the film and the two title characters, Lady and the Tramp, are not in the movie much. The plot is rushed, which made little room for character development. However, the chemistry between Scamp and Angel was somewhat nice, and the overall family importance theme is touching.
Overall, this film is nice for the kids to enjoy, but adults would probably stick with the original.
Grade C+
Im annoyed that Disney disappointed me
LEXHENthefuzzy15 October 2006
Im so annoyed. Why call it Lady and the Tramp when there both Hardley in it? Instead you get a dog called Scamp and a little ( what i like to call a White chocolate dog) called Angel. This really reminds me of the lion king two. Er hello? Is this what a masterpiece can produce as an after ward? Im was so sure that I was going to enjoy this film when watching this with my little cousin. But we ended up going to watch a dumb movie. The best part of it was getting a free dog toy with the DVD! If you are a Disney fan then you might enjoy this. But if you absolutely loved lady and the tramp- the you will be disappointed- sorry.
Lady and the Tramp 2: Scamp's nonsensical adventure
vasilesorin984 August 2022
This might be the only Disney animated movie I really, truly hate (and the 2019 remake).
Coming from the original movie, this feels like a 12 year old teenage girl's fanfiction.
The new characters make no sense despite the producer's wasted effort of trying to include them into the universe. Buster has no purpose and is an absolute joke of a villain, not to mention his backstory is mediocre at best. Scamp is like the typical rebellious kid you absolutely hate. And the dogcatcher is made a fool of here! He - the perpetual menace who's job is to keep the rich men's streets clear of mutts, and whose figure is obscured in shadows in the final act as to amplify the feeling of danger and hopelessness when he walks the Tramp to his final destination. They mock him in this movie!
Then there's the songs; corny and awful. The dialogue, too, drab and without flavor. It has that kiddie humor I wish was illegal.
And the dog's point of view on the world is lost, no clever story-telling, no attention to detail on body language.
Ridiculous from start to finish.
It is nothing like the original. 0/10.
Coming from the original movie, this feels like a 12 year old teenage girl's fanfiction.
The new characters make no sense despite the producer's wasted effort of trying to include them into the universe. Buster has no purpose and is an absolute joke of a villain, not to mention his backstory is mediocre at best. Scamp is like the typical rebellious kid you absolutely hate. And the dogcatcher is made a fool of here! He - the perpetual menace who's job is to keep the rich men's streets clear of mutts, and whose figure is obscured in shadows in the final act as to amplify the feeling of danger and hopelessness when he walks the Tramp to his final destination. They mock him in this movie!
Then there's the songs; corny and awful. The dialogue, too, drab and without flavor. It has that kiddie humor I wish was illegal.
And the dog's point of view on the world is lost, no clever story-telling, no attention to detail on body language.
Ridiculous from start to finish.
It is nothing like the original. 0/10.
6/10
arielsiere17 May 2022
Gosh that sequel from The Lady And The Tramp sucks i think is the worst movie ever from 2001 i would prefer to watch Atlantis The Lost Empire and Monsters Incorporated better than this unnecesary sequel i have ever seen i am starting to lose interest this day, i think this movie sucks in my opinion.
Stick With The Original
madamemoviemonsterheart18 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I know most Disney Sequels are awful and this one was just a bothersome to sit through.
1. The old characters we loved from the first movie are dull and pushed to the side for the new characters. The new characters are annoying and one dimensional. Nothing about these characters stands out. Scamp is an annoying puppy, Angel has a past but that's still not very interesting, the villain Buster is just awful, the other dogs are idiots and the dogcatcher isn't funny so he's just obnoxious.
2. The story is basically the same lesson from the first movie. Stay with the people who care about you because they matter the most basically. This movie does the same except with irritating characters so instead we're stuck in a rehashed story from the first movie but is done worst.
3. The villain in this movie is awful. First, why do we need a villain? Didn't the first movie prove that there isn't a need for a villain? The rat was just acting like rats do, the cats were being mischievous like most cats are, the aunt was just trying to take care of the baby and the dog catcher was just doing his job. Second, we don't need so tedious villain because the filmmakers think that this movie would be too boring if no villain is established.
4. The songs aren't that impressive. The love song is so cliché, the family song is pointless, that welcome home song was unnecessary and the villain song is just annoying. At least some of the songs in the original were good like Bella Notte, The Siamese Song and He's a Tramp.
Yes I know I compared this movie a lot to the original but maybe I wouldn't have to if it wasn't trying to be like the original. They did the same thing in the Little Mermaid 2, why did they do that? Just stick with the original while eating some Bolognese spaghetti. You'll have a much more memorable time. You don't have to like my opinion but I don't have to live your movie.
1. The old characters we loved from the first movie are dull and pushed to the side for the new characters. The new characters are annoying and one dimensional. Nothing about these characters stands out. Scamp is an annoying puppy, Angel has a past but that's still not very interesting, the villain Buster is just awful, the other dogs are idiots and the dogcatcher isn't funny so he's just obnoxious.
2. The story is basically the same lesson from the first movie. Stay with the people who care about you because they matter the most basically. This movie does the same except with irritating characters so instead we're stuck in a rehashed story from the first movie but is done worst.
3. The villain in this movie is awful. First, why do we need a villain? Didn't the first movie prove that there isn't a need for a villain? The rat was just acting like rats do, the cats were being mischievous like most cats are, the aunt was just trying to take care of the baby and the dog catcher was just doing his job. Second, we don't need so tedious villain because the filmmakers think that this movie would be too boring if no villain is established.
4. The songs aren't that impressive. The love song is so cliché, the family song is pointless, that welcome home song was unnecessary and the villain song is just annoying. At least some of the songs in the original were good like Bella Notte, The Siamese Song and He's a Tramp.
Yes I know I compared this movie a lot to the original but maybe I wouldn't have to if it wasn't trying to be like the original. They did the same thing in the Little Mermaid 2, why did they do that? Just stick with the original while eating some Bolognese spaghetti. You'll have a much more memorable time. You don't have to like my opinion but I don't have to live your movie.
This is one of those films that you like as a kid, and then you admire it in the future.
jabarker812 February 2016
You know how you're a kid who loves those animated films? That's me. Even one of my favorite animated movies was this as a 7 year old. I'm 16 now, and I still admire this movies effort to continue the adventures, but mainly on the pups' lives rather than the Lady and the Tramp. It's where those writers kind of mess up, but I don't care. As I think this movie is admirable, it's still good in a way. Lady and the Tramp II is one of those sequels that everyone believes flopped upon first release, but serious filmmakers, like me, can look further into the core of this film, and see where it's good, and you can also tell where its flaws are.
Genuinely good movie despite what some might say
C_Pariah17 September 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Admittedly, this might have been influenced by the fact that it and Mickey, Donald, Goofy: The Three Musketeers were the only DTV Disney movies I watched as a kid, but I understand the plot better than I did back then, and I also rewatched Three Musketeers more recently and found I wasn't incredibly keen on it, so my appreciation of this movie isn't based purely on nostalgia. Bear in mind that this review contains spoilers for both the original Lady and the Tramp and the sequel.
I'll start by addressing three of the most common criticisms I've seen against the movie: human characters' faces appearing onscreen, Buster's backstory coming off as contradictory to the first movie, and Buster being creepy to Angel.
Most of the instances of a human character's face being onscreen are when it would be awkward and contrived to obscure it, such as Scamp playing with Junior since they're at about the same height. The movie is otherwise making an effort to obscure the faces, such as Jim Dear's face being covered by a panel on the top half of the window when giving Scamp a bath at the very end. And you know what else? The faces sometimes appear in the original movie too. So quite frankly, this criticism is complete bollocks.
The first movie showed that Tramp had friends he looked out for despite otherwise being a loner, so it's not inconceivable that he could have been friends with Buster too, just offscreen. I can understand not liking it when a sequel crams a bunch of backstory into the first film when it wasn't there before to serve the current story needs, but Frozen II does something similar in its prologue.
The thing about Buster is that he is not a good person. He is bad, therefore the things he does are bad, including flirting with Angel. Jafar treats Jasmine the same way when she's fifteen.
Now I'll talk about the strengths.
The animation is remarkably high quality. Occasionally it dips, because, y'know, DTV Disney movie, but for what it is, it's a really good effort. Try Hunchback II if you want animation that can in any way be considered bad.
The movie makes it a point to incorporate many characters from the original into the cast and give them something to do. Mr. Busy, the rat, and the pound dogs are exceptions to this, but all of them have various logical in-story reasons to not show up. Not only that, but despite their minimal screentime, where it would have been simple to make Scamp's three sisters interchangeable, the one with the white collar comes off as a little more head-in-the-clouds than the other two, like when the other two race to the bathtub, but she doesn't quite get the memo and chases after them, then later when they are incoherently telling Trusty about Scamp's disappearance and she chimes in, "What they said!"
Chekhov's Gun is in full effect here. An example would be at the beginning when Tramp scratches himself and then Scamp scratches himself in the exact same way during an argument about how they aren't like each other (that on its own is a good example of dramatic irony, I might add), then later, Buster later sees both of them do it which confirms his suspicions that the two are related. Also, a lady gets her wig knocked off of her head and it falls down a drain. It holds on the shot of the wig falling down the drain, but not with so much emphasis (there's something else going on in the same shot) as to destroy all subtlety. Later, Lady, Tramp, Jock, and Trusty are searching for Scamp and think they found him but it turns out to be the same wig from earlier.
The emotional scenes are well-executed, such as when Tramp jumps into the river to get Scamp back. Lady's "Oh, please" will send shivers down any parent's spine. Later, Scamp looks through the window and sees his family mourning his disappearance and it is a genuinely heartfelt and upsetting moment. Angel really hammers it home by angrily mocking Scamp.
There are a few flaws I want to bring up, though. The editing is a bit choppy in places. Say, it stays on a certain shot for too long, or not long enough, or a character is stationary in one shot but then they're walking in the next shot. And the ending came off as a forced way to wrap everything up in a neat little bow; the family adopting Angel is understandable after she helped bring Scamp home, but all of the remaining Junkyard Dogs also finding families that also apparently happen to live in close proximity to Scamp and Angel seemed overly convenient. And the romance subplot between Scamp and Angel didn't contribute to the plot to any significant degree.
All in all, I think of this movie as an enjoyable experience, and quite frankly, I'm glad it got to be made before the plug was pulled on DTV Disney sequels.
I'll start by addressing three of the most common criticisms I've seen against the movie: human characters' faces appearing onscreen, Buster's backstory coming off as contradictory to the first movie, and Buster being creepy to Angel.
Most of the instances of a human character's face being onscreen are when it would be awkward and contrived to obscure it, such as Scamp playing with Junior since they're at about the same height. The movie is otherwise making an effort to obscure the faces, such as Jim Dear's face being covered by a panel on the top half of the window when giving Scamp a bath at the very end. And you know what else? The faces sometimes appear in the original movie too. So quite frankly, this criticism is complete bollocks.
The first movie showed that Tramp had friends he looked out for despite otherwise being a loner, so it's not inconceivable that he could have been friends with Buster too, just offscreen. I can understand not liking it when a sequel crams a bunch of backstory into the first film when it wasn't there before to serve the current story needs, but Frozen II does something similar in its prologue.
The thing about Buster is that he is not a good person. He is bad, therefore the things he does are bad, including flirting with Angel. Jafar treats Jasmine the same way when she's fifteen.
Now I'll talk about the strengths.
The animation is remarkably high quality. Occasionally it dips, because, y'know, DTV Disney movie, but for what it is, it's a really good effort. Try Hunchback II if you want animation that can in any way be considered bad.
The movie makes it a point to incorporate many characters from the original into the cast and give them something to do. Mr. Busy, the rat, and the pound dogs are exceptions to this, but all of them have various logical in-story reasons to not show up. Not only that, but despite their minimal screentime, where it would have been simple to make Scamp's three sisters interchangeable, the one with the white collar comes off as a little more head-in-the-clouds than the other two, like when the other two race to the bathtub, but she doesn't quite get the memo and chases after them, then later when they are incoherently telling Trusty about Scamp's disappearance and she chimes in, "What they said!"
Chekhov's Gun is in full effect here. An example would be at the beginning when Tramp scratches himself and then Scamp scratches himself in the exact same way during an argument about how they aren't like each other (that on its own is a good example of dramatic irony, I might add), then later, Buster later sees both of them do it which confirms his suspicions that the two are related. Also, a lady gets her wig knocked off of her head and it falls down a drain. It holds on the shot of the wig falling down the drain, but not with so much emphasis (there's something else going on in the same shot) as to destroy all subtlety. Later, Lady, Tramp, Jock, and Trusty are searching for Scamp and think they found him but it turns out to be the same wig from earlier.
The emotional scenes are well-executed, such as when Tramp jumps into the river to get Scamp back. Lady's "Oh, please" will send shivers down any parent's spine. Later, Scamp looks through the window and sees his family mourning his disappearance and it is a genuinely heartfelt and upsetting moment. Angel really hammers it home by angrily mocking Scamp.
There are a few flaws I want to bring up, though. The editing is a bit choppy in places. Say, it stays on a certain shot for too long, or not long enough, or a character is stationary in one shot but then they're walking in the next shot. And the ending came off as a forced way to wrap everything up in a neat little bow; the family adopting Angel is understandable after she helped bring Scamp home, but all of the remaining Junkyard Dogs also finding families that also apparently happen to live in close proximity to Scamp and Angel seemed overly convenient. And the romance subplot between Scamp and Angel didn't contribute to the plot to any significant degree.
All in all, I think of this movie as an enjoyable experience, and quite frankly, I'm glad it got to be made before the plug was pulled on DTV Disney sequels.
Another lazy sequel from Disney
Maziun23 February 2014
My review will be shortly and uninspired . Just like the movie I just saw. Unless you're a Disney fanatic skip this one and stick to the original.
This movie is not one bit inspired. They even made a copy scene of the famous restaurant scene from the first movie ! Talk about being lazy. The whole story , humor, songs and so-called emotions feel fake and fabricated in five minutes. The new characters including our main hero Scramp are uninteresting and not really likable. Or maybe I should say undeveloped. I know that in animated movies characters aren't really complex , but those characters here are just paper thin and the movie never takes the necessary time to develop them. Compare the love story here to the original one and you will understand what I'm taking about. The only really likable characters here are the ones from the original , but they have too little screen time.
The love story and father-son conflict here had some potential , but it was completely wasted. It's just another one of those cash-in sequels to classic movies that Disney likes to make. It's short and forgettable. It's not one of the worst movies ever . It's just weak. I give it 1/10.
This movie is not one bit inspired. They even made a copy scene of the famous restaurant scene from the first movie ! Talk about being lazy. The whole story , humor, songs and so-called emotions feel fake and fabricated in five minutes. The new characters including our main hero Scramp are uninteresting and not really likable. Or maybe I should say undeveloped. I know that in animated movies characters aren't really complex , but those characters here are just paper thin and the movie never takes the necessary time to develop them. Compare the love story here to the original one and you will understand what I'm taking about. The only really likable characters here are the ones from the original , but they have too little screen time.
The love story and father-son conflict here had some potential , but it was completely wasted. It's just another one of those cash-in sequels to classic movies that Disney likes to make. It's short and forgettable. It's not one of the worst movies ever . It's just weak. I give it 1/10.
Disney's best sequel
srgenius4 May 2002
Disney has a habit of re-hashing old movies and they don't generally work. Look at the videos in the Aladdin series. This time, however, they have successfully recaptured the characters from the original, and built an entirely new story around them. Granted, many of the voices from the original have passed on, but the new voices do pretty well.
PS -- the dogcatcher is NOT Don Knotts...
PS -- the dogcatcher is NOT Don Knotts...
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
