The Hunchback of Notre Dame

Nicely done rendition of the classic melodrama, with Mandy Pantinkin taking a turn as Quasimodo, the bellringer of Notre Dame. Salma Hayek is marvelous as Esmeralda, with Richard Harris quite good as the wicked Monsignor Frollo, supported by a nice score by Edward Shearmur. The film stays faithful to the Victor Hugo storyline, while adding a new subtext about the new printing press' threat to the power of the Church, which adds to the story's existing political class substory and fuels the behind-the-scenes politics between Frollo and the King, within which the story of Esmeralda, Quasimodo, and the idealist Gringoire (quite competently portrayed by Edward Atterton, although both his role and that of Phoebus - a blasé Benedick Blythe - are quite abridged in this adaptation) play out. Jim Dale (reader of the Harry Potter audiobooks) is also quite notable as Clopin, King of the Thieves, whose presence throughout gives the story quite a fine dynamic. Small budget lessens the story's epic impact - and the setting resembles more of a rural farm than the center of Paris, but like most TVMs the story centers on the characters and this focus remains effective and likable. There have been many capable versions of the classic story - none of which have come close to matching the spectacle of the original silent version with Lon Chaney as Quasimodo; however this, along with the Charles Laughton version, is a worthy successor and was very nicely helmed by Peter Medak.

A realistic and good performing cast made this a good movie. The ugly, but nice Quasimodo (whose face looked quite ridiculous, but still very misformed), the beautiful and enchanting Esmeralda and of course the mean Frollo. They were all very good, although I must say

that Mandy Patinkin, as Quasimodo, made the biggest impression on me, he really could make you cry. Richard Harris was great as the clergyman torn between his belief and Esmeralda and Salma Hayek, of course, was as stunning and beautiful as ever. As for the story, well I believe I don't have to explain that to anyone.

Great, but yet not very much acclaimed or famous film. 8/10

Excluding the low-budget animated versions- the sole exception being the Burbank Films Australia one- this would be the weakest, including them it would be one of them. For the best/most faithful adaptations, look to the Anthony Quinn and Anthony Hopkins versions, for the best versions on their own terms my personal favourites are Charles Laughton's and Disney's(Chaney's is also excellent, and Hopkins'). A lot of scenes do seem under-populated(it looks like only less than 30 people inhabit Paris) and key ones like Esmeralda's rescue done competently but indifferently and with not much impact, especially after Laughton's and Disney's versions doing that scene so brilliantly. The whole thing about Frollo not wanting printed books coming to public use and killing someone over it didn't feel that well thought-out and may make one unsure about when the story is meant to take place. The adaptation is far from ugly, it's very handsomely filmed and lit, Quasimodo's makeup is fairly well-done and the landscapes, scenery and costumes are lovely, but some of the sets are too rural farm sometimes and lack authenticity. Characterisation is also thin especially in the case of Phoebus, here so abridged and underwritten that it feels like he wasn't there at all. There is an exception though and that was Frollo, a very interesting and multi-faceated character here. The music however is very stirring and has a hauntingly beautiful vibe that is capable of pathos and chills, while the dialogue is heartfelt and thoughtful and most of the story is compelling. The relationship between Esmeralda and Quasimodo is poignant and so is the ending, and the adaptation does do a fabulous job with Frollo. The sound editing is not a problem either. And the three principal performances are excellent, the acting honours going to Richard Harris as Frollo, very menacing, imposing yet tormented, the very meaning of a misguided villain and one you end up feeling somewhat pitying rather than properly hating. Mandy Patinkin's Quasimodo is often heartbreaking in how he made him wretched yet gentle, it is very easy to sympathise with him. Salma Hayek is one of the more compassionate Esmeraldas and one of the more youthful(if missing out on her innocence) ones too since Maureen O'Hara, also very sultry and beautiful. Jim Dale, Edward Atterton and Nigel Terry are very good as well, though their characters have been better realised in other adaptations(namely Anthony Quinn's). All in all, a decent version but not one of the best of The Hunchback of Notre Dame. 7/10 Bethany Cox

I know you'll see his name in the opening credits, but you might watch the entire production without remembering that Mandy Patinkin is in the movie. He's completely unrecognizable, and he masks his voice to talk like he's deaf. I'm famously good at recognizing people, but I couldn't see him inside Quasimodo at all. Well done! Quite frankly, I didn't think he had such great acting talents inside him. He was truly wonderful.

This tv version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame is very similar to the Disney version, and with good reason: Mandy was going to give voice to the character in 1996 until creative differences led him to leave the production and create a real-people version of his own. So, when you see Esmerelda's white goat, the discovery of baby Quasimodo on the church steps, and the Festival of Fools, you understand. Salma Hayek plays the tantalizing gypsy, and it's easy to see why Archbishop Frollo (played by Richard Harris) feels such temptation. This version delves pretty deep into that angle of the plot (but, then again, so does Disney), and Richard whips himself whenever he gets impure thoughts.

Like every version of this classic French story, there are some scenes that are just too sad to watch. I've never been able to make it through Quasimodo's humiliation in the town square; that's where the handy fast-forward button comes in. The rest of the movie is very good, especially as a real-people companion to the Disney classic. Jim Dale plays Clopin, and if you grew up seeing him in the Carry On films, or listening to his Broadway recording of Barnum, you'll be delighted to see him in such a fitting role.

Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to violence and torture scenes, I wouldn't let my kids watch it.

Technically this movie sounds a bit of a dud. Terribly understated, little to no character development (even the Disney version had more if only just), dodgy make up even though Mandy Patinkin still manages to give an exeptionally sympathetic portrayal of Quasimodo, showing him as the man more than the monster. Some of the scenes remembered from the classic were downplayed where a little spectacle wouldn't have hurt. Most of the performances are 1 dimensional but the 3 main characters are good, Richard Harris is quite menacing as Dom Frollo. Direction is a bit sad in a lot of places giving the feel that the director just wanted to get the scene out of the way and move onto the next one. But despite all these flaws it's still pretty good. You really feel something for Quasimodo, all that he's been through, and the characterisation of him as a man rather than a monstrosity makes you all the more sympathetic. Worth Seeing....