TheLittleSongbird The best version of Victor Hugo's classic The Hunchback of Notre Dame(or Notre Dame de Paris) will to me always be Charles Laughton's version, followed by Disney's(very underrated, adaptation-wise there are much more faithful ones but on its own- a much fairer way to judge- it is a wonderful film), Lon Chaney's and Anthony Hopkins'. But there are worse too, there are a few low budget animated versions that range from very poor to mediocre. This version has a lot of good things but also its foibles. The foibles are in particular some sloppy and not really necessary dubbing and the underwhelming rescue of Esmeralda/ Sanctuary scene of any of the adaptations of the book, a far cry from the goose-bump-inducing power that the Laughton and Disney versions had. Jean Danet's Phoebus manages to be incredibly irritating- especially how overly smug he is- and dull, yes even for a character that already is shallow. The film looks great though, there is some great attention to detail and photography, the colour is beautiful. Georges Auric's score is subtly haunting with some rousing parts though personally his score for La Belle Et La Bete is a much better film score from him. The scripting is literate and the direction is hardly an amateur job though a couple of scenes do show a lack of imagination(the Sanctuary scene faring the worst). The story is very faithful in spirit- without being bogged down by being too much so- to the book, the most faithful versions on the whole are between this and Hopkins', unfortunately there is the omission of Frollo and Esmeralda's prison scene which agreed is a pivotal scene that would added much to the two characters. It was really interesting to see Frollo's alchemy and the ending is incredibly moving(the most so perhaps of all the adaptations) and brilliantly executed. There could have been more of Esmeralda and Quasimodo's relationship, but there is still a sense of Esmeralda seeing through Quasimodo's deformity and seeing him for his good qualities, which was touching. The acting is not bad at all mostly, and they are helped by that their characters are not distorted and have flaws instead of being too perfect. Anthony Quinn makes for a deeply felt Quasimodo and Gina Lollobrigida(looking astonishingly gorgeous) is a sensual if not so innocent Esmeralda. In support the standouts are Alain Cuny's darkly brooding but tormented Frollo and Jean Tissler's menacing but subtle Louis XI, though Robert Hirsch Phillippe Clay are good and true to their characters respectively. Djali is very cute as well. Maurice Sarfati is an okay if undistinguished Jehan. In conclusion, a respectable film adaptation of a literary classic but not a great or definitive one. 7/10 Bethany Cox

ma-cortes Slow and sometimes boring retelling of the Victor Hugo novel that packs an all-star-cast and spectacular scenes . The timeless tale of the seductive gypsy Esmeralda and the tortured hunchback Quasimodo with Anthony Quin in a overacting and tragic performance along with bombshell Gina Lollobrigida who displays a little credible interpretation . It is set in fifteenth century Paris, 1482 . Today is the festival of the fools, taking place like each year in the square outside Cathedral Notre Dame . Among jugglers and other entertainers is Esmeralda (Gina Lollobrigida ,this was the first time she spoke her lines in French with a strong Italian accent) and her goat (co-female star of the film with Gina Lollobrigida, was insured for two million francs) . From up in a tower of the cathedral, Frollo (Alain Cuny stealing the movie as an old cleric) , an alchemist and archdeacon , gazes at her lustfully . The hot-blooded young gypsy is accused by Church officials of being witch and the deformed Parisian bellringer provides her sanctuary . The freakish hunchback named Quasimodo , falls in love with the young gypsy queen, Esmeralda, who in turn is in love with Phoebus, a gentleman soldier and a rogue with the ladies . Unknown to him, his love is dangerous, because Frollo has lustful obsession for Esmeralda and is willing to kill the handsome soldier to possess her. But the hunchback will tolerate no harm coming to her , not even if it comes from his own master . Meanwhile , the gypsy king plots to foment a peasant revolt, which eventually leads to the peasants storming the Cathedral of Notre Dame . This French of Victor Hugo's ever popular novel with classical characters such as an appropriately gypsy and a deformed bell ringer . Best French retelling infused with sadness , sweep , intense drama , and an attempt at capturing a degree of spirited Hugoesque detail . Good performance from Anthony Quinn , famous for his contortions and expressive gestures via make-up . Quinn gives a textured , pre-Zorba , the Greek interpretation of Quasimodo , the Hunchback in Hugo's eponymous novel ; however , he displays a lot of gesticulation . Mediocre acting by Gina Lollobrigida as Esmeralda, a sensuous gypsy who performs a bewitching dance in front of delighted spectators. Great performances all around at charge of a good support cast . Shot simultaneously in French and English-speaking version, but it looks as if the English one was not used . The scene of Quasimodo's coronation was shot twice for each version of the film. For the original French-language version, he is crowned 'Pope of Fools', as in the novel, and wears a mock Papal tiara , for the English-language version, he is crowned 'King of Fools', and wears a royal crown ; this was because the American Hays Code forbade mocking of the clergy . This properly melodramatic flick packs a colorful cinematography filmed entirely in France in Cinemascope by Michel Kelber ; being necessary a right remastering . The sweeping musical score was provided by the classic Georges Auric . The motion picture was professionally directed by Jean Delannoy , but with no originality . This is a remake of several earlier films , including the followings : 1923 silent vintage retelling by Wallace Wolsey with Lon Chaney Sr ; classic version by William Dieterle (1939) with Maureen O'Hara , Charles Laughton , Edmond O'Brien and Cedric Hardwicke . And subsequently realized for TV as 1982 rendition with Anthony Hopkins , Derek Jacobi and Lesley-Anne Down and 1998 by Peter Medak with Salma Hayek and Mandy Patinkin . Finally , Walt Disney cartoon recounting by Kirk Wise and Gary Trousdale with voices by Tom Hulce , Demi Moore and Kevin Kline , it was followed by another Disney sequel .

eroskitten This film is another substandard adaptation.It is like almost every other movie based on Hugo's novel: not faithful to the story. Characters are out of character and their roles have changed. While probably talented otherwise, the actors seem to have no control over their roles. Not one of them plays their part accordingly. However, they are not wholly to blame. The script is poorly written under the pretext of faithfulness.The actors are making an effort. But they are definitely, definitely, out of character.Esmeralda is among the worst interpretations. She is highly sexualized, even flirtatious; she is almost sophisticated in the matters of love. Here, she is no longer the innocent girl of Hugo's novel. She therefore loses the most lovable, endearing quality of her character. Lollobrigida has the other quality: her beauty. Yet this beauty is not enough to carry Esmeralda believably. This is an almost utter failure.A true failure is the portrayal of Claude Frollo. A MAJOR mistake in plot is made here; Jehan, his brother, is "archbishop" in this film. In the novel, Jehan is a low-life, a scholar whose only thoughts are turned toward physical needs. He causes constant pain to Frollo, who is actually the Archdeacon in the text. Jehan is just another reason for the priest's madness, not a tool to satisfy it. Character-wise, he is the same as most Frollo's. He is played evil, painted diabolic, cut down into a one dimensional, unsympathetic personage. The audience can no longer decide for itself what his feelings truly are; the priest is lustful, vengeful, villainous. He looks at his handiwork concerning Esmeralda with joy in this film. By the final act, he has been driven mad; but it also causes him pain in the novel. Esmeralda's pain is his pain, yet he –MUST- do these things. He is lustful, yet the glimmer of love is almost visible. The film destroys that depth, that ambiguity.The other actors are on the same track, yet not quite as severe. The script is shallow at some points, and seems to be missing something.Dubbing quality is undoubtedly imperfect. The film is also low budget, so the unhappy state of costuming and set can be forgiven to an extent.Some viewers may find this version enjoyable. It is a film after all; many have never read the Hugo novel, Notre Dame de Paris. However, die-hard fans and purists will be left unsatisfied.

theowinthrop No, it is not as great as the 1939 version. There was some spark in the 1939 version that captivates the audience to this day. It is sadly missing here - not that this film is dull. Far from it. The French have a habit (a good one) of producing movies based on their literary classics that generally show the actual stories quite well. But that means the spirit of the story has to be kept. Victor Hugo was a brilliant 19th Century novelist. Although "Les Miserables" has a strong coterie of fans as his best novel, and it is panoramic in scope, most critics feel his tragedy (yes tragedy) of "Notre Dame De Paris" is his finest novel.He wrote it in 1832, and (reputedly) used up a whole bottle of ink writing it - so that he felt it should be called "What's Inside A Bottle Of Ink". Fortunately he changed his mind. It is a splendid historic view of Paris in the year 1470. It is a Paris ruled by a brilliant tyrant, who does not mind using torture to accomplish his ends. It is a Paris where the bulk of the population is poor, is uneducated, is bigoted, and is superstitious. It is a Paris dominated, when not by King Louis XI, by the Christian Church (today the Roman Catholic Church, but this is some forty seven years before Martin Luther comes on the scene, so there is no Protestantism - except possibly for the Hussites in Bohemia).This film version adheres to the novel far more than the 1939 version did. Frollo is as villainous as ever, but his intellectual pursuits are shown. Opposed to spreading learning, he privately is an alchemist and student of science. He does use his position as brother of the archbishop to manipulate and influence, so the central issues of his interest in Esmeralda, and the conflict with his celibacy, are still there. But he also is an isolated figure here that was not really the case in the 1939 version. Frollo's power is due to his brother. He knows if the archbishop dies, so does Claude's power.I mentioned how in the 1939 film, Harry Davenport's Louis was a lovable codger - hardly the real "Spider King". Jean Tissier's Louis is far closet to the mark - without a trace of emotion he plays cat and mouse with a political prisoner to get the advice on a clerical question. The question, brought to him by a wounded (not killed - he was only wounded) Captain Phoebus about saving Esmeralda from the church trial (and probable execution) that Frollo has manipulated her into is not what Louis feels (even he were inclined) that he should get involved in. He has enough problems keeping his state in tact from that cousin of his Charles the Bold of Burgundy, to want to get involved in a church controversy. So, he visits his old adviser (now in a cage for fouling up an important mission) and pretending to show concern gets the desired affirmation about his hand's off opinion without promising anything. That's the real Louis XI we know and respect! Gina Lolabrigida is closer to the sultry Esmeralda than Maureen O'Hara was, but her performance is not as strong. Still the gypsy victim is a reactor character, her strongest point of action being pursing Phoebus (who would really just wish to sleep with her - not marry her). She barely comprehends the behavior of Frollo, and why he is so infatuated with her. And she only gradually understands the affectionate nature (and true love) of Anthony Quinn's Quasimodo. Quinn is not as made up as Laughton was, but he is not handsome here. He is deformed, and at a great disadvantage against the other suitors.The title of the novel in French emphasizes the cathedral itself. Hugo knows what was vigorous and alive in 1470 Europe and France that survived - the spirit in it's art. The cathedral becomes part of the players of the plot. This is true in all the versions, but especially here. Not only when Quasimodo saves Esmeralda temporarily by carrying her off to the towers, or when he uses the molten iron for the bells to pour on the mob. But also at the end, when he avenges the woman he loves.SPOILER COMING UP: Frollo, in the novel and this film, does kill Esmerelda - he arranges to have her hanged in the Cathedral (thus actually revealing his hypocrisy about Catholicism - he does not care that he is defiling a holy place by such an act). Quasimodo is in an agony when he sees the dead body of his beloved taken away, and Frollo dismisses him curtly. But Frollo is looking intently at the dead girl, and obviously relishing it. Without a moment's thought, Quinn, as Quasimodo, pushes Frollo off the tower. Now in the novel, symbolically, the falling Frollo has a slim chance of regaining the tower if he grabs a ledge and holds on. He nearly does, but it proves too slippery, so he falls to his death. The building rejects saving him - he's not worth it.Not as good as the 1939 version, but still worth watching as it is closer to the original novel. Try to get a look at it some time.