SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

Contentar Best movie of this year hands down!

AutCuddly Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

DrMMGilchrist I was disappointed by this ITV adaptation of 'Notre Dame de Paris' when I first saw it on TV 35 years ago, and it still disappoints. There may be spoilers ahead, as I compare it with other adaptations and the source novel.While it does, at least, retain from the novel Claude's status as Archdeacon and adoptive parent of the founding Quasimodo, much else is derived from the 1939 Hollywood film, with the romanticisation of Pierre Gringoire and the happy ending it gives him and Esméralda (rather than Djali). There are other changes: Captain Phoebus is depicted as already married, instead of betrothed, and (*spoiler*) Claude's death is placed as the climax of the 'Porte Rouge' episode, rather than at the very end of the story.The chief problems are in the casting. While the actors are mainly well-known and have done excellent work elsewhere, they are not well-cast in this. Derek Jacobi is particularly miscast as Claude. He's too old and the wrong physical type (Tim Piggott-Smith, who plays his subordinate Philippe – an entirely superfluous new character – or Robert Powell – under-used as Phoebus – would have been better in the role). He also comes across as too much the comfortable 'career cleric', not the driven, intense young intellectual and scientist, with his agonising self-mortifications and self-destructive passions. I can't help but see this as more like Brother Cadfael being a bit naughty. In fact, his Cadfael, who has a colourful past, has far more personality than this depiction.Lesley-Anne Down is a pretty Esméralda, but it's not her fault the role is written so vapidly. Gerry Sundquist makes an appealing lead, but he's not the Pierre I love in the book, more like the 1939 film-version. Anthony Hopkins is a competent Quasimodo, but he's not the most interesting character, despite Shoberl's unauthorised re-titling of the book in English, which film-makers seem to prefer for some reason. Overall, this lacklustre adaptation falls between the two other TV adaptations I've seen: it's inferior to the 1976 BBC version, which had the best ever Pierre in Christopher Gable, but still superior to the 1997 US version, which had a far-too-old Richard Harris as a book-burning Claude and Mandy Patinkin as Quasimodo the secret intellectual and author… (Yes, really!) More than ever, I regret the disappearance of the 1966 BBC adaptation starring James Maxwell

TheLittleSongbird I love the book, and I love the 1939 film which I found beautifully made, memorably performed and very poignant and the Disney film for while it is not a true adaptation the animation and music more than make up for me and Frollo is one of Disney's most interesting characters.This Hallmark Hall of Fame adaptation is not as good as these two in my view, but it is one of the truer adaptations of the book especially in its depiction of Frollo. Two scenes didn't work for me, the Festival of Fools scene which was in need of much more jollity and the Court of Miracles scene which while well acted and set lacked intensity.However, two scenes in particular did stand out as very powerful, the angry mob scene which is one of the more vivid depictions of that particular scene of any film based on the classic novel and the ending which killed me emotionally.This Hunchback of Notre Dame does look gorgeous with excellent photography and sumptuous costumes and settings, though I kind of agree that black and white would have given it a more Gothic tone. The story still maintains its emotional impact, the script is thoughtful and literate and Ken Thorne's music is memorable and never too obtrusive.The acting is spot on. Lesley-Anne Downe is a breathtakingly beautiful and sensual Esmeralda and David Suchet in a role completely different to his Poirot persona(quite a shock if you ask me) is a grotesque Clopin. Anthony Hopkins is a poignant Quasimodo, but it was Derek Jacobi who nails his tortured and complex character that made the adaptation for me.In conclusion, very well done. 8/10 Bethany Cox

vironpride With every different version of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" that I have ever seen, I hope again that I will one day see a film that copies the novel exactly. Victor Hugo's novel is a tragedy all the way, and it does NOT have a happy ending, or even a semi-happy one! The only version that is most like "Notre Dame de Paris" is the 1977 film described elsewhere in this site. However, the 1982 version comes closer than the earlier ones, which, because of censorship, could not have an Archbishop feverishly pursuing a heathen gypsy female through the dark streets of Paris, laying aside his priestly vows to lust after her to the death. This dark, Gothic romance cries out for black and white--it just doesn't work in color, and the color here is gorgeous. See the 1939 Laughton version to see what I mean. And speaking of the Laughton version, Anthony Hopkins is obviously copying Charles Laughton's legendary performance, and does it quite well--one great actor's nod to another. Has Anthony Hopkins ever given a bad performance? Or has Derek Jacobi, for that matter? He succeeds in making Dom Claude what I have always considered this character to be--not a villain, but a pathetic, pitiable character torn between his holy vows and his forbidden lust for a beautiful gypsy dancer. Lesley-Ann Down is lovely, to say the least, as Esmeralda, and the supporting cast is solid. David Suchet as Clopin is fine in his own way, but it was a thankless task to try to follow Thomas Mitchell's great, over-the-top turn as the King of the Beggars in the 1939 version. Though this version is not as good as it could have been, it still is one of the best, and well worth your time.

Ariel-28 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.