El jorobado

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....

This version of the Victor Hugo story was good as a whole. Quasimodo wasn't particularly ugly, and it was amazing that he had read so much. Esmeralda was sweet, and it was no wonder she rejected Frollo since he looked very old and was far from attractive. However, at the beginning he really wanted to protect Quasimodo.

I was surprised that the art of printing books was so important in the film. It was incredible that Frollo was even ready to kill the King's minister rather than to let the people have books!

The public humiliation of Quasimodo and Esmeralda was shocking. It was touching that Esmeralda tried to appeal the King for the bellringer. I was very delighted that those two became friends, and again, it deeply touched me to hear Quasimodo talk about his appearance.

I had never before seen a version in which Quasimodo addressed Frollo as his father. He wanted to get him to confess his crime, but still, he tried to save him from death. And he was even strong enough to defy his guardian when he said: "You are a freak."

At the end, it was touching to see Esmeralda ring the bells for Quasimodo - at least, he was happy at the moment of his death.

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.

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 .