The Hunchback of Notre Dame

Salma Hayek deserved her Esmeralda.

This was the basic thought after the final credits of this not great but nice crafted film. Sure, the great job of Mandy Patinkin is the pillar of this film reminding the animation of 1996, offering the tools for Richard Harris for a dark, creepy character, impressive in each scene.

Fair atmosphere, not bad acting and the courage to offer the correct perspective, sure at level of sketch, to the masterpiece by victor Hugo.

Can be better ?

It is just decent. And this is the only important thing because, not being memorable version, it is a pleasant one.

In short, just correct .

Sometimes it is difficult to judge a reproduction of an old classic film. The remake has to interpret the story to a different generation. I believe this Peter Medak movie will be better received by the younger generation for its modern visual effects and story telling. I recomend this film to high school and college students who will need to write a book report on the Hunchback of Notredame and want to enjoy a great movie at the same time. The casting and acting was great and the directing excellent.

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

Harris is intense and frightening as dom claude an expert actor who knows his trade very well. Patinkin is very sympathetic and hayak looks good but offers little emotion. a decent film but the 1982 derek jacobi version explored characterization much better.

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....