Notre-Dame de Paris

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 .

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....

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

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.

This version of Hugo's classic tale, directed by Peter Medak, is spoilt somewhat by Mandy Patinkin's make-up as Quasimodo - only one side of his face seems to be disfigured, making him more like the phantom of the opera than the cathedral bell-ringer. But that's a small point.

Salma Hayek is just OK as Esmeralda, but she isn't as luminous a beauty as Maureen O'Hara was in the 1930s film version. Edward Atterton is Gringoire, and Benedick Blythe Phoebus - neither particularly memorable.

The two in the cast who are really worth watching are Nigel Terry as king Louis, and Richard Harris as the troubled, religious Frollo, ashamed of his feelings towards Esmeralda and jealous of the disfigured misfit he has taken on as his pseudo son. The character is multi-faceted and fascinating.

This version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame definitely shows its TV movie roots, but it is still a superior piece of drama, slightly above the average.