Image Copyright 1998 MGM Animation (They're welcome to it, too...)

Secret of NIMH 2

I've always had the understanding, the wisdom, that sequels in movies are never really as good as the original. Oh, there were a few exceptions; I simply can't remember them right now. But to the point, I was hoping against all hopes that this could be an exception to that rule: that this sequel might indeed uphold the standard once set by the first one. Well, if you haven' theard already, I will add my voice to the ever-growing crowd of NIMH fans : THIS SEQUEL SUCKS!!! I tried. Oh, I tried. I tried to give it a clean, unbiased view of the movie. But in the end, after watching it, I must agree with everything bad said about it. Normally, I judge an animated movie by 3 criteria : Quality of Animation, Quality of Plot, and (and if the movie came from a book) How Closely it Follows the Intentions of the Original Author. The Secret of NIMH earned A's in the first 2 criteria, and a B in the third one: overall an outstanding record. However, the sequel's marks are (accompanied with loud booing)

Quality of Animation : D

Quality of Plot : D

How Closely it Follows the Intentions of Original Author : F

The explanation is simple.

Quality of Animation :

The animation was excessively bright, much like cartoons of today. While the Secret of NIMH had a darker overture, with much of the action occurring in the dark underground or stormy sky, the sequel seemed to be in a Teletubby land, where the sun (or brightness), for that matter, never seems to go down. Also, unlike SoN (as I will abbreviate the Secret of NIMH from now on ), it has no DETAIL. That is, the bystanders AND the main characters are simply bland in both looks and thought, without the original's attention to detail, which had lovingly detailed EVERYONE.

Quality of Plot :

The plot in the original was good : it had a storyline that could be followed easily, but was complex enough (with both the menaces of Jenner and Dragon ) to be fun. Here, it\rquote s simply...stupid. Basically, Timothy (here degraded into an idiotic Timmy ) goes to Thorn Valley, knowing NOTHING of the rats of NIMH, who had saved his life. He goes through hero-training which reminds me of the Disney 's Hercules, and then proceeds to disobey everything he learned by following Jenny to save the Lost Six (incidentally, Jenny and her parents had clothes- wonder how they got that at NIMH!) Then, a bunch of lame music numbers follow, and one of the most stupid, degrading, and pointless characters - Cecil the caterpillar- pops up, and explains that he and JEREMY(!) are scamming the forest creatures. Then, they are chased out, and Jeremy takes them, not to a laboratory, but a CASTLE, called NIMH. Then follows your regular cartoon fighting scene, where the victor invariably wins in some predictable way, big celebration scene, and credits. Don Bluth made SoN to show the world that his animated movies were better than Disney 's. MGM Studios apparently tried to COPY Disney...Sigh.

How Closely it Follows Intentions of Original Author

A few words will suffice : SoN didn't do it perfectly. Do you seriously expect this excuse of a cartoon to do it at all?

Use these links to go back to the other sections of my page. I'll install frames one of these days.

  • Introduction
  • What's New...
  • The other NIMH pages out there...
  • My review of "The Secret of NIMH 2"...
  • Credits

    Contact Information

    Electronic mail address
    redwall__abbey@hotmail.com

    <BGSOUND SRC="Funeral_March_2.mid" LOOP=INFINITE>

    By the way, if you want to hear the music well, turn up the speakers! This is "Funeral March," by Chopin- a very appropriate piece for the occasion.


    These websites of mine don't, won't, and NEVER WILL earn money for me, or anyone else, for that matter. This is a simple fan-site to the great movie masterpiece by Don Bluth, and the great book by Robert O'Brien. In other terms, I acknowledge that this movie was made by © Mrs. Brisby, Ltd - and that copyright violations here are COMPLETELY unintentional. All comments about this page can be sent to the e-mail address given above.
    Last revised: March 24, 1999.