Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Claire Dunne One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Ella-May O'Brien Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

YeastOfEden I simply don't understand why everyone praises this movie to such an insane degree. One of the reviews calls it "the peak of art in Hollywood cinema" and another "one of the best Hollywood movies ever". Uh...really? Have you watched it recently? Sure, the technical achievements are great. The set of Notre Dame looks breathtaking and huge. And sure, it has a great story to work with, but they're already basing it on one of the best books I've ever read. As an adaptation of Hugo's novel, and as a standalone movie, it does a forgettable job.Let's begin by saying something positive about the movie: Charles Laughton's performance as Quasimodo. He dominates this movie in every scene. Not only is the makeup fantastic, but you can feel the pain and misery of this classically tragic character every time he utters a line, or even just looks at the camera. If it weren't for Laughton, I'd have given this movie far lower than a 5. Every other actor is forgettable. Esmeralda is an awkward Maureen O'Hara early in her career. Never mind that she looks NOTHING like a gypsy, but her performance is standard and rather boring. O'Hara would become a good actress in the 40s and would sadly pass away in 2015, but this early work is nothing special. Cedric Hardwicke takes the complex, brooding, conflicted character of Frollo, and turns him into a generic, racist bigot. He and Quasimodo have no connection whatsoever. The complicated interactions of characters that gave the book its intensity and drama are not to be found here.Maybe the reason I dislike this movie is because the book raised my expectations. I suspect those unfamiliar with the story, being exposed to it for the first time, would enjoy this movie quite a bit, simply for the fact that it's a great story. But as far as adaptations go, there are better ones. Even the Disney movie, in my opinion, better captures the spirit of the book. Rather than manifesting itself as a stiff, stunted poor man's version of the Hugo novel, the Disney version has its own dark tone and identity, and it works. Minus the singing Jason Alexander gargoyles.One might say that it was very good at the time. After all, it came out nearly eighty years ago. But look at what else was released in 1939. The Wizard of Oz. Gone With the Wind. And one year before that, The Adventures of Robin Hood. Two years before, La Grande Illusion. All of those are masterpieces, with better acting, smarter scripts, and greater depth.Like all versions of "Hunchback", this one creates a world of ignorance and bigotry, where laws are based on millennia-old traditions and petty prejudices triumph over logic. It succeeds in creating this world, though it feels particular ham-handed. In one scene, the King asks some of his courtiers about Christopher Columbus's voyage around the world, to which they exclaim that the world is so obviously flat, and Columbus is such a fool. Even though the fact that the world is round was common knowledge in Europe since the time of the ancient Greeks. And every crowd in this movie is absolutely temperamental. One minute, they worship Quasimodo as a king; the next, they call for his death; then, when he saves Esmeralda, they cheer again. The gypsies seem to love Gringoire at first (an incredibly pointless character, I might add, even in the book, where he's just Victor Hugo's self-insert) and then prepare to execute him. The movie is disorganized and clumsy, taking the romanticized, Gothic tone of the book and making it absurd.This movie has some great moments. Laughton's performance. The grand set of Notre Dame. The intense final climax where gypsies invade the cathedral. But the rest of it is utter crap, and I say that without a moment's hesitation. Therefore, it evens out. If you hate Disney, hate reading, and want to see a pretty faithful adaptation of the story, feel free to watch it. Otherwise, I would pass on this one, check out "Hunchback" at the library, and dive into the dark, complex story that Victor Hugo created.

jmsfan Until seeing Laughton as the Hunchback Quasimodo, I had only seen the Lon Chaney silent, which is excellent. But, I must say that this version surpasses that one, and it's mainly due to Charles Laughton. He makes this deformed bell-ringer of Notre Dame cathedral, even with his marred looks and super-strength, at once a sympathetic figure who we root for. Besides Laughton, there is Sir Cedric Hardwicke, who plays Archdeacon Claude Frollo of Notre Dame, the man who has been Quasimodo's caretaker since the Hunchback's youth. But now, Frollo is a slimy character who falls in love with Maureen O'Hara's gypsy girl Esmerelda, and is not above committing murder to get to her. O'Hara is very young and beautiful and causes almost every man who sees her to fall in love with her. This includes an almost unrecognizable Edmund O'Brien as a young performer for the poor of Paris. And, of course the Hunchback falls for her, but knows he can never have her. But he is not bitter about it like others, and risks his life for Esmerelda. The movie, taken on its own, is fine entertainment. But Laughton lifts it above standard fare and makes it a classic. I've seen lots of Laughton films, but this is currently my favorite of his. Highly recommended.

alex_unnamed A beautiful movie! Having not yet read Hugo's novel, but being aware, of course, of the well- known story, I was very captivated by Dieterle's version. The performances are very fine: Charles Laughton in the title role is supported by a very able cast - the never-less-than-beautiful Maureen O'Hara, a very young (and, quite surprisingly, good-looking) Ed O'Brien in his film debut, Harry Davenport, the ubiquitous Thomas Mitchell, and Cedric Hardwicke, whose performance I found to be the most impressive. The black and white-cinematography by Joseph H. August is very adequate, capturing the atmosphere one might have of the time and age beautifully (at least, the one in my mind), and so is Alfred Newman's score, which, unlike many other scores of that era, did not drown the film in a constant and often annoying soundscape. In fact, there are quite a number of scenes that might well have worked in a silent movie - the scene where Gringoire, the O'Brien-character, gets harassed by beggars comes to mind, for example. Running close to two hours, the movie nevertheless never loses steam; the multitude of interesting characters and the fine execution (of the novel, not the characters) made me put the novel up on my wish list for the next birthday presents. Very recommended!

Claudio Carvalho In the end of Fifteenth Century, in the Feast of Fools in Paris, the deformed bell ringer Quasimodo (Charles Laughton) is elected the King of Fools. The gorgeous gypsy Esmeralda (Maureen O'Hara) does not have the necessary permit to stay in Paris and seeks sanctuary in the Notre Dame with the Archbishop of Paris. His brother, the Chief of Justice Frollo (Sir Cedric Hardwicke), has a repressed lust for the gypsy dancer and tries to force Esmeralda to go with him to the tower of the Cathedral. However she flees and Frollo orders Quasimodo to abduct the beautiful youngster. Quasimodo catches her but she is rescued by Captain Phoebus (Alan Marshal) and feels a crush on him. Quasimodo is arrested and sentenced to be whipped in the square of Notre Dame. When he begs for water, Esmeralda is the only person that gives water to him. Meanwhile Esmeralda helps the poet Gringoire (Edmond O'Brien) that was going to be hanged by the King of the Beggars, accepting to marry Gringoire to save him from the gallows. Esmeralda flirts with Captain Phoebus in a party and he is stabbed on his back by the jealous Frollo. Esmeralda takes the blame and is sentenced to the gallows. But Quasimodo rescues Esmeralda and brings her to the sanctuary of Notre Dame and expresses his love for the gypsy. Meanwhile a fight of classes between the nobles led by Frollo that want to hang Esmeralda, and the people, led by the beggars, gypsies and poets that want to protect the woman takes place."The Hunchback of Notre Dame" is one of the cruelest romances of the literature and cinema history in a dark age in France. The author of "Les Misérables", Victor Hugo, writes another heartbreaking novel, describing the fight of classes in the French society in the end of the Middle Ages. In this version of this sad tale of injustice, Charles Laughton is awesome with a memorable performance and Maureen O'Hara is very beautiful in the role of the seductive gypsy. My vote is eight. Title (Brazil): "O Corcunda de Notre Dame" ("The Hunchback of Notre Dame")