Notre-Dame de Paris

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....

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.

Excluding the low-budget animated versions- the sole exception being the Burbank Films Australia one- this would be the weakest, including them it would be one of them. For the best/most faithful adaptations, look to the Anthony Quinn and Anthony Hopkins versions, for the best versions on their own terms my personal favourites are Charles Laughton's and Disney's(Chaney's is also excellent, and Hopkins'). A lot of scenes do seem under-populated(it looks like only less than 30 people inhabit Paris) and key ones like Esmeralda's rescue done competently but indifferently and with not much impact, especially after Laughton's and Disney's versions doing that scene so brilliantly. The whole thing about Frollo not wanting printed books coming to public use and killing someone over it didn't feel that well thought-out and may make one unsure about when the story is meant to take place. The adaptation is far from ugly, it's very handsomely filmed and lit, Quasimodo's makeup is fairly well-done and the landscapes, scenery and costumes are lovely, but some of the sets are too rural farm sometimes and lack authenticity. Characterisation is also thin especially in the case of Phoebus, here so abridged and underwritten that it feels like he wasn't there at all. There is an exception though and that was Frollo, a very interesting and multi-faceated character here. The music however is very stirring and has a hauntingly beautiful vibe that is capable of pathos and chills, while the dialogue is heartfelt and thoughtful and most of the story is compelling. The relationship between Esmeralda and Quasimodo is poignant and so is the ending, and the adaptation does do a fabulous job with Frollo. The sound editing is not a problem either. And the three principal performances are excellent, the acting honours going to Richard Harris as Frollo, very menacing, imposing yet tormented, the very meaning of a misguided villain and one you end up feeling somewhat pitying rather than properly hating. Mandy Patinkin's Quasimodo is often heartbreaking in how he made him wretched yet gentle, it is very easy to sympathise with him. Salma Hayek is one of the more compassionate Esmeraldas and one of the more youthful(if missing out on her innocence) ones too since Maureen O'Hara, also very sultry and beautiful. Jim Dale, Edward Atterton and Nigel Terry are very good as well, though their characters have been better realised in other adaptations(namely Anthony Quinn's). All in all, a decent version but not one of the best of The Hunchback of Notre Dame. 7/10 Bethany Cox

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 .

Sometimes it is difficult to judge a reproduction of an old classic film. The remake has to interpret the story to a different generation. I believe this Peter Medak movie will be better received by the younger generation for its modern visual effects and story telling. I recomend this film to high school and college students who will need to write a book report on the Hunchback of Notredame and want to enjoy a great movie at the same time. The casting and acting was great and the directing excellent.