Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

To all those who have watched it: I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.

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

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

something does this film real special. nothing precise. nothing easy to define it. sure, the cast, the script, the location, the dramatic story of Victor Hugo. but, more important, a series of details who impose , for very long time, precious memories. and this is the motif for who it remains one of my favorites films. for a form of poetry who escapes from words. for the clash / sparkles between Gina Lollobrigida and Anthony Quinn.and for a form of authenticity of a period who defines the film as art, not always perfect, but not as product for precise target.

The best version of Victor Hugo's classic The Hunchback of Notre Dame(or Notre Dame de Paris) will to me always be Charles Laughton's version, followed by Disney's(very underrated, adaptation-wise there are much more faithful ones but on its own- a much fairer way to judge- it is a wonderful film), Lon Chaney's and Anthony Hopkins'. But there are worse too, there are a few low budget animated versions that range from very poor to mediocre. This version has a lot of good things but also its foibles. The foibles are in particular some sloppy and not really necessary dubbing and the underwhelming rescue of Esmeralda/ Sanctuary scene of any of the adaptations of the book, a far cry from the goose-bump-inducing power that the Laughton and Disney versions had. Jean Danet's Phoebus manages to be incredibly irritating- especially how overly smug he is- and dull, yes even for a character that already is shallow. The film looks great though, there is some great attention to detail and photography, the colour is beautiful. Georges Auric's score is subtly haunting with some rousing parts though personally his score for La Belle Et La Bete is a much better film score from him. The scripting is literate and the direction is hardly an amateur job though a couple of scenes do show a lack of imagination(the Sanctuary scene faring the worst). The story is very faithful in spirit- without being bogged down by being too much so- to the book, the most faithful versions on the whole are between this and Hopkins', unfortunately there is the omission of Frollo and Esmeralda's prison scene which agreed is a pivotal scene that would added much to the two characters. It was really interesting to see Frollo's alchemy and the ending is incredibly moving(the most so perhaps of all the adaptations) and brilliantly executed. There could have been more of Esmeralda and Quasimodo's relationship, but there is still a sense of Esmeralda seeing through Quasimodo's deformity and seeing him for his good qualities, which was touching. The acting is not bad at all mostly, and they are helped by that their characters are not distorted and have flaws instead of being too perfect. Anthony Quinn makes for a deeply felt Quasimodo and Gina Lollobrigida(looking astonishingly gorgeous) is a sensual if not so innocent Esmeralda. In support the standouts are Alain Cuny's darkly brooding but tormented Frollo and Jean Tissler's menacing but subtle Louis XI, though Robert Hirsch Phillippe Clay are good and true to their characters respectively. Djali is very cute as well. Maurice Sarfati is an okay if undistinguished Jehan. In conclusion, a respectable film adaptation of a literary classic but not a great or definitive one. 7/10 Bethany Cox

This is a movie that has all the trappings of an epic, but isn't. But it is still a credible rendition of the Victor Hugo classic, with Gina Lollobrigida giving a strong performance as Esmeralda. The weak part of the movie is Anthony Quinn's performance as Quasimodo. Mr. Quinn's portrayal is not believable. Quasimodo is supposed to generate feelings of pathos; that does not happen in this movie. As a result, the plot becomes flat. The intensity of the relationship between Quasimodo and Esmeralda is lacking. Between Mr. Quinn's mumbling of his lines, and the treatment of the poet Gringoire as a buffoon, the movie teeters on the brink of cinematic collapse. Yet, it is saved by staying faithful to the original story and by good performances by some of the supporting cast, as well as by the essential power of the original story. The story of the hunchback and the gypsy girl is classic; read the book.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a very hard film to make. Mostly due to the darkness and despair of the original work. If you've only grown up with the Disney version, prepare to be shocked. I truly liked this effort, as it got a lot of the complexities of each character down. Frollo is a man of religion but also science. His faith and logical mind battling it out as he experiences lust. Esmerelda is a victim of her own beauty, but also plays a hand in her own downfall. She doesn't understand her power over men which leads to her angering of the males. Quasimodo is portrayed as not so much an outcast here. He is known by all, but is awkward and unaware of his strength. This is a film where everyone is guilty for their actions, which also makes them all sympathetic. The design of the film is often too much. WIth so many colors and such production put in it comes across as an over the top school production. Less can be more, but with the final heart wrenching scene, you'll probably be left as an emotional wreck.