Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

Pluskylang Great Film overall

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Kirpianuscus 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.

TeresaCarledo I don't quite understand why this movie is always pulverized in favor of overrated 1939 Hollywoodization or the Disney travesty. Admittedly it needs more "oomph" - some blame director Delannoy, I heretically think problem is Hugo's own novel, which is well-written but hardly exciting story. However, Alain Cuny is excellent as Frollo, and while cutting off the dungeon scene is a mistake, in general the script by Jean Aurenche and Jacques Prévert is pretty faithful to Hugo. Sure, this Esmeralda is not Hugo's sixteen-year-old heroine, but she is one of the most sympathetic versions of the character. I rather take her than some sleazy young girl acting worse than a two franc whore.

bkoganbing In this third version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame we get a story far closer to the truth of Victor Hugo's classic novel. Unlike the productions done starring Lon Chaney and Charles Laughton, this one was done in France by the French who took pains to remain faithful to the version Victor Hugo wrote. Note the title in the original French and note it's the cathedral not the hunchback who is the center of the story. That allowed Italian film star Gina Lollobrigida to be billed first and then Anthony Quinn as the hunchback. No doubt about it Lollobrigida is the sexiest Esmerelda going, she makes both Patsy Ruth Miller and Maureen O'Hara look like nuns. Then again she was who the movie going public was paying to see.This is not to take anything away from Anthony Quinn who seems to extend his role as the brutish strong man in La Strada into his portrayal of Quasimodo. Although Charles Laughton's performance is my favorite, this does not denigrate Quinn in any way. The rest of the cast is made up of players from the French cinema. I particularly liked Jean Tissier as the 'Spider King' Louis XI. It's a subtle piece of acting and you can see why this was no man to trifle with.The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a tale of innocence. Quasimodo's to be sure, but even the sexy and voluptuous Esmerelda. She may know all about sex, but she's pretty ignorant in the ways of the political world. Both protagonists are used by forces and people they cannot comprehend.This version of the Victor Hugo classic has its supporters and they should support this great retelling of a classic tale.

theowinthrop No, it is not as great as the 1939 version. There was some spark in the 1939 version that captivates the audience to this day. It is sadly missing here - not that this film is dull. Far from it. The French have a habit (a good one) of producing movies based on their literary classics that generally show the actual stories quite well. But that means the spirit of the story has to be kept. Victor Hugo was a brilliant 19th Century novelist. Although "Les Miserables" has a strong coterie of fans as his best novel, and it is panoramic in scope, most critics feel his tragedy (yes tragedy) of "Notre Dame De Paris" is his finest novel.He wrote it in 1832, and (reputedly) used up a whole bottle of ink writing it - so that he felt it should be called "What's Inside A Bottle Of Ink". Fortunately he changed his mind. It is a splendid historic view of Paris in the year 1470. It is a Paris ruled by a brilliant tyrant, who does not mind using torture to accomplish his ends. It is a Paris where the bulk of the population is poor, is uneducated, is bigoted, and is superstitious. It is a Paris dominated, when not by King Louis XI, by the Christian Church (today the Roman Catholic Church, but this is some forty seven years before Martin Luther comes on the scene, so there is no Protestantism - except possibly for the Hussites in Bohemia).This film version adheres to the novel far more than the 1939 version did. Frollo is as villainous as ever, but his intellectual pursuits are shown. Opposed to spreading learning, he privately is an alchemist and student of science. He does use his position as brother of the archbishop to manipulate and influence, so the central issues of his interest in Esmeralda, and the conflict with his celibacy, are still there. But he also is an isolated figure here that was not really the case in the 1939 version. Frollo's power is due to his brother. He knows if the archbishop dies, so does Claude's power.I mentioned how in the 1939 film, Harry Davenport's Louis was a lovable codger - hardly the real "Spider King". Jean Tissier's Louis is far closet to the mark - without a trace of emotion he plays cat and mouse with a political prisoner to get the advice on a clerical question. The question, brought to him by a wounded (not killed - he was only wounded) Captain Phoebus about saving Esmeralda from the church trial (and probable execution) that Frollo has manipulated her into is not what Louis feels (even he were inclined) that he should get involved in. He has enough problems keeping his state in tact from that cousin of his Charles the Bold of Burgundy, to want to get involved in a church controversy. So, he visits his old adviser (now in a cage for fouling up an important mission) and pretending to show concern gets the desired affirmation about his hand's off opinion without promising anything. That's the real Louis XI we know and respect! Gina Lolabrigida is closer to the sultry Esmeralda than Maureen O'Hara was, but her performance is not as strong. Still the gypsy victim is a reactor character, her strongest point of action being pursing Phoebus (who would really just wish to sleep with her - not marry her). She barely comprehends the behavior of Frollo, and why he is so infatuated with her. And she only gradually understands the affectionate nature (and true love) of Anthony Quinn's Quasimodo. Quinn is not as made up as Laughton was, but he is not handsome here. He is deformed, and at a great disadvantage against the other suitors.The title of the novel in French emphasizes the cathedral itself. Hugo knows what was vigorous and alive in 1470 Europe and France that survived - the spirit in it's art. The cathedral becomes part of the players of the plot. This is true in all the versions, but especially here. Not only when Quasimodo saves Esmeralda temporarily by carrying her off to the towers, or when he uses the molten iron for the bells to pour on the mob. But also at the end, when he avenges the woman he loves.SPOILER COMING UP: Frollo, in the novel and this film, does kill Esmerelda - he arranges to have her hanged in the Cathedral (thus actually revealing his hypocrisy about Catholicism - he does not care that he is defiling a holy place by such an act). Quasimodo is in an agony when he sees the dead body of his beloved taken away, and Frollo dismisses him curtly. But Frollo is looking intently at the dead girl, and obviously relishing it. Without a moment's thought, Quinn, as Quasimodo, pushes Frollo off the tower. Now in the novel, symbolically, the falling Frollo has a slim chance of regaining the tower if he grabs a ledge and holds on. He nearly does, but it proves too slippery, so he falls to his death. The building rejects saving him - he's not worth it.Not as good as the 1939 version, but still worth watching as it is closer to the original novel. Try to get a look at it some time.