sddavis63 Some years ago I saw the silent version of this story, starring Lon Chaney, Sr. in the title role of Quasimodo, and was completely taken with it, although I have to confess to not being particularly familiar with Victor Hugo's novel. This, of course, has a very different feel than a silent movie would have, and for sheer entertainment value I have to say that I preferred the 1923 version more. Having said that, I wouldn't at all want to suggest that this is anything other than a very good movie. Probably because of voice, it offers greater reflection on a variety of issues that were present in the 1923 movie (and, presumably, in the novel) but were less fleshed out just because of the medium.From the very beginning we're introduced to racism (or, at least, nationalism) as it's revealed that gypsies have been forbidden to enter Paris without formal permission. Some do make it in, of course, including Esmeralda (played by Maureen O'Brien), who becomes the main engine who moves the story forward, as she's either pursued or admired by a variety of men, including the Hunchback. There's the issue of sanctuary introduced, as both Esmeralda and the Hunchback enjoy the protection of the church. How many limits can be placed on the concept of "sanctuary" - and, if any limits at all are placed on it, is there really a concept of sanctuary? There's the obvious reflection on class struggles in 16th century Paris, as the nobility, the townspeople and the beggars find themselves clashing - ironically in the case of the latter two, who were really fighting for the same thing: the enforcement of sanctuary, which also gives us an introduction to the problem of a mob mentality, as people begin to be fighting for the sake of fighting. What's the role of the King (Louis XI, played by Harry Davenport) - a thought that came to me as the nobility prepared a document to "force" the King to have Esmeralda executed? Do they consider themselves above the King? 16th century France was not a constitutional monarchy like, say, 21st century Britain. If the King could be so easily controlled by the nobility then what was the purpose of having a King? And, of course, in the depiction of the relationships between Esmeralda and her various interested suitors, there are a variety of takes on love and what it means. As I said, most of this was present in the 1923 version, but could be fleshed out more fully in a "talkie."I enjoyed Charles Laughton's performance as Quasimodo. For me, Laughton's signature performance will continue to be Captain Bligh from 1935's "Mutiny on the Bounty" but he handled this role well, and made Quasimodo a sympathetic character - as he must be if the story is going to work. It was a limited role in terms of dialogue, but he captured it well - perhaps not quite the equal of Chaney's '23 performance, but quite good. His makeup was effective, and I understand that Laughton took the role so seriously that he actually went to great lengths to experience some of Quasimodo's pain as scenes were being shot. O'Hara (who I know primarily from 1947's "Miracle On 34th Street") also handled the role of Esmeralda quite well. Davenport's take on Louis XI was interesting - not how I would have expected the King to be portrayed. Much gentler, kinder and more concerned with the lower classes than I think would have been realistic. The movie also featured Thomas Mitchell as Clopin (not as effective as Ernest Torrence in 1923) and Cedric Hardwicke as Frollo, who offered a dark and almost creepy take on Frollo.Deeper and more reflective than the silent version, I still felt that it fell short of that version in entertainment value, but it's very good nonetheless. (7/10)

Uriah43 Set in 15th Century France, the people of Paris are bound by ignorance and superstition. They fear what they don't understand and react in anger towards those who are different than them. "Esmeralda" (Maureen O'Hara) is a beautiful Gypsy who yearns for justice for her people. "Quasimodo" (Charles Laughton) is a hideously deformed, dim-witted and deaf bell-ringer who resides in the Cathedral of Notre Dame and seldom ventures outside. When both of them are wrongfully accused of crimes it causes a stir among the Parisians. On the one side is the Chief Justice named "Frollo" (Cedric Hardwicke) whose cowardice for not protecting Quasimodo is exceeded only by his lust for Esmeralda. So he uses his office and his person to destroy that which he cannot have. Anyway, this film is both deep and intricate and involves issues of injustice, cruelty and class warfare. It was nominated for 2 Academy Awards and should appeal to those who enjoy good classic movies of this kind.

MartinHafer earth is flat "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" was obviously a quality production. After all, it has some dandy actors (such as Cederic Hardwicke, Henry Davenport, Edmond O'Brien, Thomas Mitchell, Laughton and Maureen O'Hara), nice costumes and lovely sets that must have cost a fortune. And, it's also a lot more watchable than the old silent version with Lon Chaney, Sr.--so I do recommend you watch it. However, I do have one reservation--it plays very fast and loose with the original story by Victor Hugo. In Hugo's version, the story is not a nice tale with a happy ending. No, pretty much everyone dies and it's a downer! But, only Hollywood would think to 'happify' it!! It's a shame, as the film had a lot going for it--including Charles Laughton's lovely performance as poor 'ol Quasimodo.Oh, and the history teacher in me feels compelled to object to a statement early in the film that everyone thought the Earth was flat back in the 15th century. This is a myth--and people DID know that the planet was round. I could go on and on explaining it, but if you really care, do an internet search using the terms 'flat earth myth' and you'll see what I mean. They knew the Earth was round even in ancient times--and the folks in the Middle Ages and Renaissance weren't nearly as stupid as we'd like to imagine.

edwagreen One of the few pictures where you will see Edmond O'Brien in a handsome dashing lead. Sure, it's 1939 and he is thin and the romantic type.The film shows the absurdity of medieval decision making where the accused is put through tests that have nothing to do with their innocence or guilt.The film depicts cruelty and ignorance among all groups of the period. The elite saw the printing press as a potential danger if the masses got mass produced books and learned how to read.Charles Laughton says nothing for the first 1 1/2 hours of the film. However, his distorted face and contortions say it all. He is a frustrated being who finds kindness after 50 lashes. Maureen O'Hara, as the gypsy girl who came into Paris illegally, provides him with water.This is a film of basic misunderstanding and mistrust by many.Cedric Hardwicke steals the show as the ruthless magistrate hiding a great secret that will send O'Hara to the gallows.Henry Davenport best shows a king, more of a figurehead.The make-up job done on Laughton's Quasimodo was outstanding.