I love this movie so much

People are voting emotionally.

Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

There's a theory I've invented, called "Humphrey Bogart-itis". Humphrey Bogart-itis dictates that whatever performance you first watch of an actor will mark how you see him or her forever after. Humphrey Bogart, famous for his gangster and detective films, played the nice guy in The African Queen. Since The African Queen was the first Humphrey Bogart movie I ever saw, I always think of him as being nice and sweet. The first Charles Laughton movie I ever saw was The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Even though Charles famously played such villains as Captain Bligh, Inspector Javert, Captain Kidd, and King Henry VIII, I always think of him as Quasimodo. To me, Charles Laughton is pitiful and lovable, and I always want to reach into the screen and envelop him in a big hug.Disney patterned their drawing of Quasimodo after Charles Laughton, and when you watch this 1939 version-there have been quite a few remakes-you can see the numerous similarities between it and the cartoon. Cedric Hardwicke plays the cruel, cold Judge Frollo, and a seventeen-year-old Maureen O'Hara plays the wild but loving Esmerelda. Charles Laughton discovered Maureen and helped her get the part, adding an extra sweetness to their scenes together. Just as in the cartoon, there's a Clopin, played by Thomas Mitchell, and a Phoebus, played by Alan Marshal. The order of scenes is nearly identical, but there's an added sadness the cartoon understandably chose to cut: Quasimodo is deaf.If you watch five minutes of Charles Laughton's performance without bursting into tears, you've misplaced your heart. It's one of those performances, like Robert De Niro in Awakenings, Sean Penn in I Am Sam, and Shirley Booth in Come Back, Little Sheba, that reduces you to a puddle within minutes. In itself, The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a heart-wrenching story, but Charles's incredible performance makes it one of the great classics of the silver screen, and certainly the most famous film adaptation of Victor Hugo's novel. As you might expect, since the Academy snubs better performances than it awards, Charles Laughton wasn't even nominated for an Oscar for his performance. You may have already seen the famous "Sanctuary!" scene, and while I'm sure that scene brought tears to your eyes, I highly recommend you watch the full movie to make good use of that box of Kleenex going to waste on your coffee table.

I simply don't understand why everyone praises this movie to such an insane degree. One of the reviews calls it "the peak of art in Hollywood cinema" and another "one of the best Hollywood movies ever". Uh...really? Have you watched it recently? Sure, the technical achievements are great. The set of Notre Dame looks breathtaking and huge. And sure, it has a great story to work with, but they're already basing it on one of the best books I've ever read. As an adaptation of Hugo's novel, and as a standalone movie, it does a forgettable job.Let's begin by saying something positive about the movie: Charles Laughton's performance as Quasimodo. He dominates this movie in every scene. Not only is the makeup fantastic, but you can feel the pain and misery of this classically tragic character every time he utters a line, or even just looks at the camera. If it weren't for Laughton, I'd have given this movie far lower than a 5. Every other actor is forgettable. Esmeralda is an awkward Maureen O'Hara early in her career. Never mind that she looks NOTHING like a gypsy, but her performance is standard and rather boring. O'Hara would become a good actress in the 40s and would sadly pass away in 2015, but this early work is nothing special. Cedric Hardwicke takes the complex, brooding, conflicted character of Frollo, and turns him into a generic, racist bigot. He and Quasimodo have no connection whatsoever. The complicated interactions of characters that gave the book its intensity and drama are not to be found here.Maybe the reason I dislike this movie is because the book raised my expectations. I suspect those unfamiliar with the story, being exposed to it for the first time, would enjoy this movie quite a bit, simply for the fact that it's a great story. But as far as adaptations go, there are better ones. Even the Disney movie, in my opinion, better captures the spirit of the book. Rather than manifesting itself as a stiff, stunted poor man's version of the Hugo novel, the Disney version has its own dark tone and identity, and it works. Minus the singing Jason Alexander gargoyles.One might say that it was very good at the time. After all, it came out nearly eighty years ago. But look at what else was released in 1939. The Wizard of Oz. Gone With the Wind. And one year before that, The Adventures of Robin Hood. Two years before, La Grande Illusion. All of those are masterpieces, with better acting, smarter scripts, and greater depth.Like all versions of "Hunchback", this one creates a world of ignorance and bigotry, where laws are based on millennia-old traditions and petty prejudices triumph over logic. It succeeds in creating this world, though it feels particular ham-handed. In one scene, the King asks some of his courtiers about Christopher Columbus's voyage around the world, to which they exclaim that the world is so obviously flat, and Columbus is such a fool. Even though the fact that the world is round was common knowledge in Europe since the time of the ancient Greeks. And every crowd in this movie is absolutely temperamental. One minute, they worship Quasimodo as a king; the next, they call for his death; then, when he saves Esmeralda, they cheer again. The gypsies seem to love Gringoire at first (an incredibly pointless character, I might add, even in the book, where he's just Victor Hugo's self-insert) and then prepare to execute him. The movie is disorganized and clumsy, taking the romanticized, Gothic tone of the book and making it absurd.This movie has some great moments. Laughton's performance. The grand set of Notre Dame. The intense final climax where gypsies invade the cathedral. But the rest of it is utter crap, and I say that without a moment's hesitation. Therefore, it evens out. If you hate Disney, hate reading, and want to see a pretty faithful adaptation of the story, feel free to watch it. Otherwise, I would pass on this one, check out "Hunchback" at the library, and dive into the dark, complex story that Victor Hugo created.

With the end of the 15th century and the end of the 100 Years War, the people can once again hope under the wise old King Louis XI. The gypsies are barred from entering Paris but everybody is infatuated with gypsy girl Esmeralda (Maureen O'Hara). Quasimodo (Charles Laughton) is crowned the king of fools by the crowd. Esmeralda seeks sanctuary in the church from the guards. Chief Justice Jehan Frollo (Cedric Hardwicke) tries to trick Esmeralda and sends Quasimodo to catch her. Phoebus Captain of the Guards (Alan Marshal) arrests Quasimoto and frees the girl. She falls for Phoebus and is taken in by the bombastic king of the beggars Clopin (Thomas Mitchell). Poet Pierre Gringoire (Edmond O'Brien) is kidnapped by Clopin's men and Esmeralda saves him from hanging by promising to marry him. Frollo rounds up all the gypsy girls in search for Esmeralda. Quasimoto is flogged in the town square and only Esmeralda shows mercy by giving him water. Esmeralda is invited to dance for a grand party. Phoebus is flirting with Esmeralda and then next, Phoebus is found stabbed to death. Jehan admits to the stabbing to his brother archdeacon Claude Frollo and railroads her for bewitching him. Esmeralda is convicted of the murder and sentenced to hang. Clopin, Gringoire and Quasimoto all try to save her.The movie comes alive whenever Charles Laughton's Quasimodo comes on the screen. He embodies so much humanity. He is so pitiful in the hands of the fickle crowd. Newcomer 19 year old Maureen O'Hara is beautiful and shows real power acting opposite Laughton. Cedric Hardwicke is a solid villain. The movie suffers a little whenever Quasimodo isn't on the screen. It's not as good but only by comparison. The production is grand with large crowds and sets. However it is one performance above all that elevates this movie.

Until seeing Laughton as the Hunchback Quasimodo, I had only seen the Lon Chaney silent, which is excellent. But, I must say that this version surpasses that one, and it's mainly due to Charles Laughton. He makes this deformed bell-ringer of Notre Dame cathedral, even with his marred looks and super-strength, at once a sympathetic figure who we root for. Besides Laughton, there is Sir Cedric Hardwicke, who plays Archdeacon Claude Frollo of Notre Dame, the man who has been Quasimodo's caretaker since the Hunchback's youth. But now, Frollo is a slimy character who falls in love with Maureen O'Hara's gypsy girl Esmerelda, and is not above committing murder to get to her. O'Hara is very young and beautiful and causes almost every man who sees her to fall in love with her. This includes an almost unrecognizable Edmund O'Brien as a young performer for the poor of Paris. And, of course the Hunchback falls for her, but knows he can never have her. But he is not bitter about it like others, and risks his life for Esmerelda. The movie, taken on its own, is fine entertainment. But Laughton lifts it above standard fare and makes it a classic. I've seen lots of Laughton films, but this is currently my favorite of his. Highly recommended.