User reviews

One of the great Hollywood films of 1939, this adaptation of Victor Hugo's novel is sumptuously put together, boasting a fine script, tight direction by German export William Dieterle, and a cast who fit their parts perfectly: Charles Laughton superb as the maligned Quasimodo; Maureen O'Hara in an early role as gypsy Esmeralda; Cedric Hardwicke as the pious Frollo; and Harry Davenport as the king, Louis XI.

The story is a version of Beauty and the Beast set within the confines of Notre Dame Cathedral and the dirt-strewn and prejudiced streets of Paris. Quasimodo, physically repulsive and deafened by the bells of the cathedral, nevertheless finds it in his childish heart to love the beautiful Esmeralda and to sacrifice his sanctuary for her. She however only has eyes for the dashing Gringoire (Edmond O'Brien) who she saves from the justice of the beggar thieves.

It is Laughton's performance that holds this film together - truly one of the greatest screen actors, capable of portraying pathos like no other. Contrast this film role with his Henry VIII or Captain Bligh and you begin to get an idea of his impressive range.

A sweeping claim? Perhaps. But despite the presence in Hollywood over sixty subsequent years of Ford, Wyler, Kubrick, Coppola, Scorsese et al, The Hunchback of Notre Dame remains as fresh, as emotionally resonant and yes as powerfully artistic as the day it was made. What constitutes 'art' is of course a personal matter, just as the Breughel-like compositions of Hunchback might be as mystifying to someone whose favourite film is A Clockwork Orange (Lichtenstein?). But what makes Hunchback so satisfying as art is precisely that its makers didn't set out with art in mind. Dieterle and his co-creators embarked on the project with the aim of telling a great yarn, making it look authentic, and above all ENTERTAINING the audience. It is to this end that the Grand Guignol excesses of the novel were trimmed or altered, and the Hollywood bittersweet ending imposed. Audiences filed out with their Kleenex in hand having witnessed a three-ring circus of a movie, then went home to read the war-soaked newspapers.

Virtually every frame of this movie could be taken in isolation, made into a poster and hung on a wall. Examples include Gringoire cradling the dying Clopin as a rivulet of lead trickles past in the background, the voyeuristic eye of Quasimodo peering through fence palings at the dancing Esmeralda - I could go on and on. And pervading it all is the magnificent score of Alfred Newman, surely his finest ever.

Rather than sing its obvious praises, the film can simply speak for itself. As narrative, as character, as cinema craft, it is totally successful throughout. The Hunchback of Notre Dame is my favourite film of all time, bar none. Ten out of ten

Though the French have done many versions of Victor Hugo's celebrated classic, this version starring Charles Laughton has certainly stood the test of time and is the best known and loved in the English speaking world.

Lon Chaney, Sr. did an acclaimed silent version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Laughton was following a great tradition. And he did it in the manner of Chaney, almost without dialog. Not that Hugo wrote too much dialog for Quasimodo in his story, but except for his time with Esmerelda in the tower after he rescues her, Laughton is almost speechless in the film. Of course his character in addition to being deformed is also deaf from the ringing of those cathedral bells.

Quasimodo born deformed as he was, was left as an orphan on the steps of the Notre Dame cathedral in medieval Paris. Raised in the sheltered atmosphere of the church, he derives some joy in his duties as the bell ringer in the tower. His mentor is the brother of the archbishop played by Cedric Hardwicke and the archbishop is Walter Hampden. Quasimodo's life is useful, but without love.

But Laughton is crushing out on Esmerelda the gypsy girl played by Maureen O'Hara in her American screen debut. Problem is that Hardwicke is also getting hot and bothered by her.

Hardwicke's role is the second best acted in the film next to Laughton's. He's a man with shall we say some issues. He's purportedly committed to the church and it's celibacy requirements. But Dr. Freud wasn't around back in the day of Louis XI to tell us about sex drives. Hardwicke's desires mean only one thing, Esmerelda has to have bewitched him. When he kills Alan Marshal who is also interested in Maureen and looks like he's about to round third so to speak, the blame goes on Maureen.

What I like about the story is how the lives of two very ordinary people, Quasimodo and Esmerelda, become the focal point for a whole lot of religious and political issues of the day. The church, the peasants, the just developing middle class, and the nobility all have an agenda as far as the Esmerelda murder case is going. The only agenda poor Quasimodo has is he's in love with her.

Maureen O'Hara who was a discovery of Charles Laughton back in the United Kingdom was pushed by Laughton for the role of Esmerelda and traveled with him to America to play the part. She was grateful to him ever afterwards for any career she had and can't praise him enough for getting RKO to sign her.

Harry Davenport probably plays the most benign Louis XI ever put on film. It sure is a far cry from Basil Rathbone in If I Were King or Robert Morley in Quentin Durward. He plays him like the kindly grandfather he usually plays on screen.

Thomas Mitchell as Clopin the king of beggars and Edmond O'Brien as Gringoire the poet are two other significant roles. O'Brien gets his first substantial role on screen in The Hunchback of Notre Dame and this was a banner year for Thomas Mitchell. In 1939 he was also in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Gone With the Wind and Stagecoach for which he won Best Supporting Actor. He could have though for any one of these films.

When all is said and done though the film belongs to Charles Laughton who was the screen's best portrayer of tortured humanity. Even beneath all of Bud Westmore's grotesque make-up we can feel his anguish. He's not a stupid man Quasimodo, he knows how repulsive he is to most of the human race. He's childlike though, something like Peter Sellers in Being There, another character raised in a secluded atmosphere.

To see Charles Laughton at the top of his game in my humble opinion one has to see The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

Considering that RKO was not renowned for epic film making, the production mounted for this version of Victor Hugo's classic story is surprisingly elaborate and effective.

The Paris set is a beautiful creation and possibly the greatest work by Van Nest Polglase, who with the producer Pan Berman is chiefly remembered today for the elegant art-deco designs for the Astaire-Rogers musicals.

The centrepiece of this remarkable set is the replica of Notre Dame cathedral which was only built to 50% height of the original; the towers above were added as an optical effect by use of a hanging miniature in some shots and by incorporating a glass painting in long shots. It's very convincing.

Dieterle was the perfect choice to direct this story. A student (and later collaborator) of Max Reinhardt, he marshals the huge crowd scenes (no CGi here - those thousands of peasants are all real people) with aplomb and his mastery of expressionistic imagery informs every frame.

Alfred Newman brought an intelligence to the musical score rare in Hollywood. His on screen credit "Musical adaptation and original composition by" reflects his skillful combining of original renaissance choral music by Tomas Luis de Victoria with his own work. He also uses a stirring Hallelujah chorus by uncredited Austrian Jewish émigré Ernst Toch (in Hollywood to escape the Nazis) for the memorable scene where Quasimodo rescues Esmeralda, reprised at the film's closing sequence as the camera pulls back from Notre Dame.

It's a great pity that a better restoration cannot be achieved for this beautiful film than is currently available on DVD. While the source print is serviceable, it is often poorly defined and suffers from many scratches. Perhaps it is the only print now extant? I would also love to see the original trailer rather than the re-release version.

While some may wish Basil Rathbone could have been released from contract at Universal to play Frollo, I think Cedric Hardwicke was ideal casting. As for Laughton, this may well be his signature role and a masterly example of great acting with hardly any dialogue at all.

As Mr Sinatra once said - "You can wait around and hope - but you won't see the likes of this again"

The best of the many versions of The Hunchback of Notre Dame, for my money, is this one, although Lon Chaney's is a close second. Despite a Hollywood tendancy to change the novel's ending so as not to depress the cash customers (although, pray tell, if you're going to change the ending, why does no one ever see Quasimodo sailing off to Tahiti with the girl? Rule # 1: strong, handsome poets beat out disfigured cripples every time, even if they're heroes. This is more true in real life than in the movies. Take my word for this, I know from painful experience *sigh*)

Charles Laughton is exceptional and Maureen O'Hara would make any man swoon and is perfect for the part of Esmerelda. The support includes the usual suspects-Thomas Mitchell, Harry Davenport and many other familiar character actors. Strike up the band and start the parade. Thunderous applause. Most highly recommended.

This was my favorite movie as a kid, from the first time I saw it on TV in the third grade. The look and the atmosphere of it have lodged ineradicably in a corner of my mind ever since, and the rescue of Esmeralda from the gibbet was and probably still is my favorite scene in a Hollywood movie. I never got to see the movie theatrically until a few years ago, when Disney hosted a showing as an excuse to preview clips of its animated version (which is based on this movie more than on the novel). The movie probably played as strongly then as it had fifty years earlier, and I have no doubt it will play the same in another fifty years. Seeing it with an audience made me realize for the first time that it is Sir Cedric Hardwicke's movie, rather than Laughton's. He dominates the story, and commands the screen whenever he appears. Since the Hays Office prohibited showing a lubricious priest, the writers did something clever: they changed the character into Javert from Hugo's "Les Miserables," here promoted to chief prosecutor, and a hypocritically high-minded celibate: as Esmeralda puts it, he seems like a priest without being one. Hardwicke's performance is superbly subtle, and his character must be one of the most intimately despicable movie villains of all time. Laughton is terrific. too; his cadences on lines like "She gave me a drink of water" are classic. (When Mandy Patinkin played the part, he himself admitted that he was simply replaying Laughton's score and hoping he'd be able to hit all the notes.) As for Maureen O'Hara, if I came across a gypsy dancer like her I'd be moved to swing into the square and rescue her myself. And how can anyone not like Thomas Mitchell's beggar king? The only substantial fault in the playing, I think, is Harry Davenport's characterization of Louis XI, which is funny but more broadly written and played than what surrounds it.

Strangely, although this is more a horror film than the other versions of the novel and contains many frightening scenes, I never thought of it as belonging to that genre and I still don't. It's much more than that. I knew someone who called it Hollywood's finest hour; he can't have been far wrong.

And that thing is.... Early on during a conversation Louis XI is having with his colleagues they discuss the idea that the world might not be flat. Nobody, NOBODY, N O B O D Y would ever have thought that the earth was flat - not just in 1482, not just in the Middle Ages - not since the ancient Greeks figured that out about 300BC.

The blame goes to Washington Irving who wrote that Columbus wanted to prove the earth was round in his 19th century novel ..... Nonsense! Everyone knew the world was round then anyway. For decades afterwards, people thought this novel was true and that this stupid idea is expounded in this film gives this a slightly un-researched feel.

Anyway, rant over - review time..... People who don't watch old pictures will be really surprised by the authenticity and realism this production has oozing through it. It takes something special to transport you to another time, let alone to such an unfamiliar one from over five hundred years ago. This big budget spectacular doesn't just create a place which seems real, it creates a place where you yourself could imagine being. In those dark and dangerous alleyways, you can feel the uncertainty and tension, you can even smell the place! Visually this looks as impressive as most modern movies. It really is top of the pile in terms of production.

Charles Laughton's acting, the way he makes you empathise with him is amazing. You feel every twinge of pain on his face and every tear of sorrow in his eyes. It's not comfortable viewing: that same sense of pity and helplessness you'd experience when seeing someone kicking a sick animal lodges tight inside your stomach. Cedric Hardwick's lust-crazed, sexually repressed zealot is also a well crafted character. It would be easy to portray Frollo as just a villain but under Diererle's talented direction you actually feel sorry for him as well. There's a lot of emotional grenades in this.

Personally, although it's not half as good, I prefer the 1982 version with Lesley-Anne Down but that's just because that's got Lesley-Anne Down in it and I am clearly a very shallow man.

From the upper shelf wherein reside all classic novels, comes this tortured tale of the famed disfigured man from Notre Dame. Although this story has been a staple of many generations, it returns to the silver screen ever so often to test the talents of up and coming Hollywood stars. Despite the fact that many notable actors have attempted the role, few do so adequately. Among the actors who have made the part memorable, the original challenge was Lon Chaney's. Another was Anthony Quinn, followed by Anthony Hopkins, and even Mandy Patinkin tried the twisted body. But in my opinion, the greatest performance of The Hunchback of Notre Dame, was this one, personified by Charles Laughton. From the moment the audience and our hero meet, it's a test of endurance. Can we bare to look upon the ugly, misshapen-ed man, who's only crime was being born half made, hence the term "Quasi", or will we draw back in fear as people did in his century? The story bears repeating as the tale of a horribly disfigured child, born so repulsive, that Parisians left him to die on the steps of Notre Dame. Saved, adopted and trained as a bell-ringer, by the deeply troubled, but powerful Father Frollo (Sir Cedric Hardwicke), he becomes a on-going joke around Paris, to all concerned except Frollo. The bells made him deaf, but that does not stop him from falling in love with a beautiful Gypsy girl named Esmerald. (Maureen O'Hara) She unfortunately is in love with Phobeus, a handsome soldier of the king. However it is Gringoire (Edmond O'Brien) a poet and playwright who leads the group of admirers which includes Father Frollo, to see which one will end up possessing the girl, in a time when superstition possessed most of Europe. Unlikely as it sounds it's the bell-ringer who draws close first. An excellent adaptation of his story, Victor Hugo would have enjoyed this version best. *****

For many viewers, this 1939 version of the classic Victor Hugo novel is the definitive retelling of the story. It's the one that stars an excellent Charles Laughton in the titular role, playing the deformed hunchback antihero who ends up proving his mettle against the corrupt local justice. It's not just Laughton's make-up job which is legendary: his performance is excellent too, really investing the audience in his sympathetic character.

THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME tells a fast-paced and engaging tale of life in 15th century Paris. A huge tableau of characters are assembled, some of them lovable, some of them hissably evil. Most notable of all is the recently-deceased Maureen O'Hara who shines as the innocent gypsy girl Esmerelda, drawn into becoming a pawn shared between the forces of good and evil through no fault of her own.

This RKO picture boasts exemplary production values and some excellent sets and scenery. Sir Cedric Hardwicke memorably chews the scenery as the black-hearted villain of the piece, but he gives just one of many strong performances here. It's a roller-coaster ride of love, hate, adventure, murder, and madness, all with a tragic heart, a sort of Middle Ages version of THE ELEPHANT MAN if you will.

The ending differs from Hugo's novel,but I guess it was necessary to bestow on the audiences a de rigueur happy end when the world situation was getting worse and worse.It' s also dubious that king Louis XI -who died in 1483- might have been aware of Christophe Colomb's plans ,because the latter only informed the king of Portugal-who refused to put up the money for his expedition- in ...1484!

These are minor squabbles.Because this movie is definitely the finest version of Hugo's classic ,much superior to the French one ,directed by Jean Delannoy(1956) with Anthony Quinn and Gina Lollobrigida.Dieterle's work is a feast for the eyes with numerous classic scenes ,very clever dialogue,superlative performances and complete mastery of the camera.

The opening-Louis XI visiting a printing house-sums up the turning of history:Gutenberg's invention will allow the knowledge and as the King watches the cathedrals ,he makes us feel that these books of stone are fast becoming a thing of the past.The Middle Ages are coming to an end,but a lot of people ,particularly the clergy do not want to lose the power they have on the populace.When Frollo sentences Esmeralda to death,because of his sexual desire,he puts the blame on the devil.He's a man of the past,diametrically opposite to Gringoire,who epitomizes modernity,and who understands the power of the pamphlet which the printing increases tenfold.

Charles Laughton is by far the best Quasimodo that can be seen on a screen:he's so extraordinary that he almost turns the happy end into a tragedy!He gets good support from a moving and extremely beautiful O'Hara as Esmeralda and from Harwicke as Frollo.

Peaks:the fools day,the cour des miracles -maybe showing some influence by Browning's "freaks"-,all the scenes in the cathedral.Dieterle is on par with the most demanding directors all along his movie:the movements in the crowd are stunning,breathtaking,often filmed from the church towers.Humor is not absent either:Gregoire's eventful night in the cour des Miracles is colorful and funny and scary all at once.

A monument,like the cathedral itself.

Although many actors including Lon Chaney, Anthony Quinn and Anthony Hopkins have strapped on the hunch over the years, none have come close to equalling let alone surpassing Charles Laughton's performance as Quasimodo in the 1939 version. Along with impressive sets, moody black and white photography and a powerful Alfred Newman score, this film remains a formidable artistic achievement.

Despite Laughton's makeup delivering plenty of shock value, his character retains sympathy. The audience is denied the comfort of seeing Quasimodo as a creature that could not exist in real life. He is neither a supernatural being nor a creation of a mad scientist. Laughton's Quasimodo is an afflicted but real human being - a kindred spirit of the true-life Elephant Man. Laughton is barely recognisable - those who know his work may recognise him by the mole on his left cheek.

Irish actress Maureen O'Hara in her Hollywood debut plays the other key figure in the story, Esmeralda. She fairly glows in this film, and has an effect on men not unlike the effect Cameron Diaz's character has on them in "Something About Mary". Males of all ages, hunchbacked or otherwise, are attracted to her.

Many scenes stay in the memory. When Quasimodo is caught watching Esmeralda dancing during the Festival of Fools, his head is pushed through a hole on a stage to be evaluated by the crowd. Although great advances have been made in makeup and special effects since 1939, the first sight of Laughton's Quasimodo still has the power to shock.

In the film's most disturbing sequence, Quasimodo is whipped for attempting to abduct Esmeralda on the orders of his guardian. After his tunic is ripped away to expose his hump, he receives 50 lashes in a scene that is still brutal despite 70 intervening years of cinematic excess. The brutality is only relieved when Esmeralda steps forward to give him water.

When Quasimodo attempts to hide his ugliness from Esmeralda in the bell tower of Notre Dame, it illustrates Laughton's ability to project a character through pounds of makeup. He also projected onto his character the way he felt about his own lack of physical attractiveness.

Laughton searched within painful life experiences to inform his roles. He didn't have to look far for pain in this demanding film. Apparently the hours spent applying his makeup put a strain on Laughton's relationship with his makeup artists, and at some point, they humiliated Laughton by pinning him down and squirting soda water in his face. Laughton drew on such experiences to help him plumb the depths of Quasimodo's despair.

In my opinion, through Laughton's inspired performance and superb production values, the 1939 film eclipses all the other versions. Despite many remakes, this remains the definitive film version.

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)

This movie has everything.

A great script - which adapts Victor Hugo's classic novel about intolerance for difference as a tale of the German persecution of the Jews under Hitler. Victor Hugo's novel, like the rest of his best work, played off powerful contrasts, beauty and ugliness, goodness and evil. This movie knows how to make use of those strong oppositions very effectively.

Some great acting, principally that by Charles Laughton, certainly, but also Thomas Mitchell - who had a great year in 1939 - and several of the other supporting players.

The camera work and the lighting is often astoundingly effective and creative. Even as a silent movie this would be very powerful.

I don't know how many times I have seen this movie. But each time I see it, I marvel at the quality of the craftsmanship.

I confess I haven't read Victor Hugo's "Notre Dame de Paris", which shouldn't qualify me as the best judge on the film because at least the makers did read it, but I guess my reaction is of a spectator who got the general idea about the themes and wanted to see them expressed through the magic of the camera. If the film could render the majesty of the cathedral's architecture (almost a century on the making), the destiny of a woman who inspired humanity within the 'beast' or inhumanity within the priest, and the whole subtext about the rising modern age, it could have been a triumph. Well, a failure, it's certainly not. Still...

It is very fitting that "The Hunchback of Notre-Dame" was released in the very year that changed the face of Europe for a much dramatic worse. The original story took place at the cusp of two historical ages, right after the medieval time where France was slowly recovering from centuries during which the people, mostly peasants, were kept at the mercy of plagues, wars and feudal rulers, and the time of the printing press and a few years before Columbus' discoveries. Renaissance was still in its infancy and the triumphant bells of Notre Dame resonated in the hearts of the population, more than any pamphlet produced by Guttenberg's little marvel...

And so while I was watching William Dieterle's film, I could get those 'end of an era' vibes as Old Europe was slowly surrendering to the ominous clicking boots of fascism, and during the climactic sequence where Quasimodo saves Esmeralda from execution and ask the people to wake up and cries "Sanctuary", it was one of these moments where a film makes one with its own context and become not much a product but a reflection of its time. For that moment only, I could get the same thrills running down my body like Chaplin delivering his speech in "The Great Dictator".

That said, it is also problematic that the film was released in what is arguably the best year of cinema, and in such a glorious company as movies like "The Wizard of Oz" or "Gone With the Wind" even a film that offer so beautiful and convincing set designs can suffer by comparison. The problem with "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" is that for all its effort to recreate the mood and the cathedral, its treatment of the story feels more uncertain and the characterization less rounded. And I guess the Hays Code had a lot to do with it because it weakened the character who makes or breaks a film.

The film's first pitfall is in the portrayal of Frollo, the archetypal devil in religious clothing entangled in a forbidden love. It is not that Cedric Hardwicke doesn't deliver a solid performance but he's too limited by a Code that couldn't allow a priest to be downright evil no matter how 'understandable' his reasons were. Therefore the film relies on a duality trick that brings a nice character on the story, the Archdeacon Claude Frollo (Walter Hampden) and his brother Jehann (Hardwicke), a villain by circumstances. Harry Davenport is Louis XI, the benevolent and open-minded king.

Now, "Notre Dame" has always been to me the tragedy of a man who was considered a monster by birth and had the misfortune to fall in love with a beautiful woman. While I would never dismiss the power of Charles Laughton's performance as Quasimodo, there are a few words to say. Reading trivia on how the deformity of Laughton was treated as a marketing trick (face hidden in the trailer) that was used even in the "Mask" film of 1985, I was less disappointed by Laughton's performance but on how so much efforts were put in uglying him (and it's quite an excellent job)- than the latitude given to him to raise above his ugliness.

The face of Quasimodo is so unique that it has an unexpected capability to distract you from the story, you don't see the character suffering, but you see how exhausting it must have been for Laughton to undergo such a transformation. The makeup is so good it steals out the depth of the character who's not given enough screentime to raise beyond his status as the local 'curiosity'. Don't get me wrong, he's got some great emotional moments but quite diluted in the narrative chaos.

Now Maureen O'Hara is one of my favorite Golden Age actresses, and that she doesn't look gypsy matters less than she doesn't have the street-smarts of a Bohemian vagrant who wouldn't be that terrorized by a face such as Quasimodo, nor fall in love with a second-rate Don Juan like Alan Marshal as Phoebius, nor being a damsel-in-distress in the arms of Cedric Hardwicke, not the fiery gal that stood tall against the Duke himself. She looks great on the screen though, so great there's a certain violence in making Quasimodo witness her going with Gringoire, of all the men. That might have hurt more than the whipping.

I'm a fan of Edmund O'Brien but his Gringoire seems rather misplaced, occupying the very screen-time that might have deepened Quasimodo or at the very least Phoebius. Thomas Mitchell does a fair job as Clopin, the King of the Miracles Court.

There's so many things worthy of the best production and blocksbusters that one wouldn't not consider the film as great entertainment but it tries so much to be an epic and a love story à la 'Beauty and the Beast' that it lacked one essential thing: a focus. I agree about a reviewer who commented that the crowds don't seem to act with consistency... the irony of the film is that while it denounces the regal stranglehold on the people, their fluctuating reactions toward 'Quasimodo' would make you wonder if it the cure wasn't worse than the evil...

I just have to say, the scene where Quasimodo rescues Esmerelda from the noose is probably the greatest cinematic moment I have ever been witness to. An absolutely amazing piece of work in an absolutely amazing movie. Charles Laughton could not possibly have played the Hunchback any better, and Maureen O'Hara is so lovely that you can not help but sympathize with every male character in the movie who can not possibly have her. An amazing piece of work.

RKO went all out in producing this sweeping version of Victor Hugo's famous book, previously made in 1923 and starring Lon Chaney; unfortunately, the translation here is too literal, and the magic and fantasy become not only lost but irreclaimable. Charles Laughton portrays the disfigured 16th century bell-tower recluse of France who falls in love with the fiery gypsy Esmeralda; preconceived as a tour-de-force, Laughton's insistence upon disappearing inside Quasimodo's make-up and hunched back intrudes upon his acting (it becomes stunt-driven). The dialogue is pedagogic from the start, while the supporting characters are introduced to us in a rather condescending fashion. The imaginative, elaborate sets and the grand music score by Oscar-nominated Alfred Newman command respect--yet, with so little of interest happening in the foreground, one may become resentful of director William Dieterle's relentless heart-tugging and manipulation. ** from ****