The Hunchback of Notre Dame

THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1982) turns out be the first time I've watched a filmed adaptation of the Victor Hugo novel. It's just something I've never got around to before now, despite owning both the silent version and the Charles Laughton outing on video. I guess it says something about my tastes in film when I've watched Paul Naschy's HUNCHBACK OF THE MORGUE before this story! As it happens, HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME turns out to be a fairly decent film, although I can't vouch for how faithful it is as I haven't read the novel. Despite being a made-for-TV production, it's eventful and intriguing, mainly worth watching for a superior cast who acquit themselves well with the material.

Anthony Hopkins, in the titular role, plays it for sympathy and it works. He's virtually unrecognisable beneath the heavy and effective makeup, and his hunchback is a tragically maligned character throughout. Lesley-Anne Down is a believable object of lust and affection for most of the cast, and Derek Jacobi has a fine line in playing villainous characters (his turn as Claudius in Branagh's HAMLET was another favourite).

Watch out for minor roles for David Suchet (with hair!), Tim Pigott-Smith, John Gielgud, Nigel Hawthorne and Robert Powell, who's wasted in a minor part. Also watch out for decent production values, with elaborate sets, and assured direction from TV helmsman Michael Tuchner. I wouldn't necessarily call this depiction of the novel definitive - it feels a little slow and stagy in places, a little cold - but it is a solidly entertaining picture.

The Hunchback Of Notre Dame is one of the best movies of all time. A balance of epic action and character is woven into a piece of great story telling. Every minute works and builds to the next. Perfect from beginning to end and deserves to be set next to Citizen Kane. Tragically it was not done for the big screen and couldn't get an Oscar.

I had been looking forward to watch this film after reading reviews praising the acts of Derek Jacobi and whatnot, but was disappointed. His Frollo seems very detached from Esmeralda, even with his talent, it doesn't connect.

Also, this Esmeralda is laughable. The hair is hilariously 80s and doesn't work. Nothing against the actor.

The one that saves this rating from even being a 6 is Quasimodo. Unfortunately we don't see a lot of him until the last half (sort of like the book), where we almost get to see more development of him but hardly see any from anyone, not even Q with Frollo. The only good scene would be the aftermath of the flogging and Quasimodo talking to Esmeralda in the tower (but only Quasimodo's dialogue, a nice touch being it's mostly lines from the book).

The ending got to me, I will admit. Hopkins does a stellar job. One of the better adaptations, but wouldn't be so quick to recommend. Watch the 1997 version if you're looking for a modern live-action Hunchback.

Hunch

Not the epic that you would expect from a film starring Anthony Hopkins, Derek Jacobi, Nigel Hawthorne, David Suchet and John Gielgud, who do at least play their parts well. However it's just missing a certain "je ne sais quoi" (X Factor).

I have no real frame of reference for the story having never read or seen any other version, not even the Disney one, but like Mr Hugo's other works, it is a good story to be told, which is probably why it has been made and remade so many times, with at least two more versions in the pipeline at this time, according to IMDB.

The leading cast all really shine against a supporting cast that don't have their fantastic experience on stage and screen.

It's a shame that Mr Hopkin's prosthetic is quite poor by today's standards, as his face is so expressive and it gets a bit lost, but you still get his usual high standard nonetheless. Although you'd think he could afford a decent dentist!?

I'd be surprised if the people of Notre Dame ever learned how to tell the time with the bells ringing so constantly and erratically as they do, but I have to say that the set is really something quite impressive too.

It does have that very typical "Made in the 80's" kind of filter and feel to it. I think it would probably be handled very differently and more artistically if the same production was made more recently. Even in the 90's I think we might have seen that certain something that this was missing.

That doesn't take away the fact that it is a relatively good film with a good cast and tells the story well, as far as I know. It's unlikely that it will ever be in anyone's top 100 list, but it's a short and simple watch for any rainy day with a cuppa.

476.15/1000.

This movie version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame is superbly similar to the Hugo novel. Quasimodo looks exactly like it's told in the book, he is almost deaf, and in this movie we see yet another "little Esmeralda", who reminds us of the dancer in the Dieterle version.

I was quite surprised that even Frollo is rather good to Quasimodo - just like in the novel - but when he already at the beginning started to show his passion for Esmeralda, I knew that he is just like he must be. Honestly, I couldn't only hate him because he later seemed to be quite unhappy of being "bewitched" and that Esmeralda refused to answer to his feelings.

I was especially shocked that the film had even the torture scene of Esmeralda. Captain Phoebus, too, was surprisingly similar to the character of the book, and it was good that Gringoire tried to warn Esmeralda about him. It was also really moving to hear Quasimodo talk about his own ugliness.

The only thing I was a little disappointed in was the end; although it doesn't belong to the novel, I had started to hope that Esmeralda could see the truth about Quasimodo.