Rating: 
Summary: Dietele,s Gem
Review: Forget really all the other versions of this great Hugo Classic. Charles Laughton heads a peerless cast through the great drama.Lon Chaney Sr. Anthony Quinn and others have given their best which was not bad at all..however here Laughton serves up an unforgettable performance. Movie critics always talked about Karloff ..how his sensitivities would show through the various tons of makeup he used for "certain" characters. Its all true but Laughton goes beyond on grand scale. A Young Maureen O Hara, an electric Ed Obrien as Gringoire, Walter Hampden , Thomas Mitchell and Cedric Hardwicke are all great. This film is almost surreal with its sets and cinematography.and it did not get much mention in 1939. Timeless CP.
Rating:
Summary: "Why was I not made of stone like thee?"
Review: Forget the rest; this is the best of all the numerous versions of Hugo's classic. Lon Chaney Sr. simply isn't in the running (excellent actor that he was), for Quasimodo is Laughton's finest role, and he brings all his superb artistry to the part. Victor Hugo has been liberally tampered with, but you'll forget that whenever Laughton is on screen. His Quasimodo is a beaten dog who learns to have his day --- only to find out that gratitude isn't love, and a kind heart is no substitute for a handsome face. The entire cast is stellar, with especial kudos to Maureen O'Hara, Cedric Hardwicke and Thomas Mitchell --- but Laughton will steal your heart. The finale is one of those occasions where Hollywood manages to improve on the original. Where Hugo plumps for a tragic death for his hunchback, the script opts for a much more harrowing tragic life for Quasimodo, living out his days in the shadows of a love that must forever remain unrequited.
Rating:
Summary: Beautiful, just beautiful
Review: I loved this movie. I thing it was so much better because it was so much darker and so much truer to the book than the Disney Version. My favorite lines are when Quasimodo speaks to the gargoyles.."Why could I not be made of stone like thee?" and also when he speaks to Esmerelda.."I am not a monster, I am a human being." How true, Quasimodo, how true!
Rating:
Summary: One of the best of the best
Review: In viewing 1939's "The Hunchback of Notre Dame," one must forget the novel upon which it is based and just enjoy it for what it is--one of the greatest films in a year of great films. It is an allegory of the war which was just then breaking out. The King of France is amazingly modern in some of his attitudes (read "politically correct"), especially for his time, which is anachronistic, to say the least. The casting is wonderful, with some of the greatest character actors of the time in signature roles. Many of the changes in the characters were obviously made not to offend. Clearly, in 1939 one could not have a lust-obsessed priest stalking a heathen gypsy girl through the streets of Paris, so the priest's younger brother in the book, Jehan, became the sinister High Justice and the villain of this piece. Cedric Hardwicke is powerful in this role, but sympathetic as a tormented man overcome with a forbidden desire. Thomas Mitchell is wonderful as the lusty King of the Beggars ("I don't cut purses--I cut throats!"). Maureen O'Hara is gorgeous as Esmeralda, though she bears little resemblance to the literary character. Charles Laughton gives one of the greatest performances of all time as Quasimodo. It is almost too painful to watch him sometimes. As I have read, his makeup could not copy the description in the novel, as Lon Chaney had reproduced it exactly for his version in the 1920s and had copyrighted it. The Alfred Newman score is truly marvelous. The novel is a tragedy, but the film has a happy ending--Esmeralda is not hanged and is reunited with Gringoire. The unhappy one at the end is Quasimodo ("Oh, why was I not made of stone, like thee?")
To repeat, forget the novel if you have read it and just enjoy the film as a Gothic masterpiece, good for any age.
Rating: 
Summary: Great Expectations
Review: It would be no great stretch of credulity to assert that movies esteemed in childhood, particularly those immersed in the grotesque or fantastical, recommend themselves to the adult based upon that distant memory, and that through them one hopes to recapture a special moment, what we collectively refer to as nostalgia. Some instances are satisfying while others fail to impress, each case swayed by its own merits. There is no psychiatrical pretention in that notion. For me the Hunchback, which thrilled me as a youth has failed to sustain its former reverence. While the imagery is captivating and the performance of Laughton is superb the disjointed narrative and weak characterizations are a setback. Indeed no believable relationship develops between the main players due to the diverging plotlines. Thanks to a splendid cast (perhaps with the exception of O'Brien's quixotic Grigoire)the shortcomings are less obvious. With the movie running at 1hr 55min Laughton (the main drawing card) is onscreen for a mere 35min and only a handfull of scenes run longer than a few seconds. Thus the title character is limited to a supporting role. Furthermore many scenes are editied with the dizzying rapidity of a modern rock video, hence many of Laughton's scenes could be replaced by still photography given the overuse of reaction shots.Too often Quasimoto is a passive observer rather than a lead player and we all want to see more of him, as you would agree. Despite my critique this movie has great merit, a great performance, yes: a great movie, no. Critics may disagree but please refrain from resorting to oral sadism, a peculiarly infantile response to a difference of opinion.
Rating:
Summary: As good as Chaney's?
Review: Now that's a question you can discuss all night. As far as make-up, nobody will ever surpass Lon Chaney's Quasimodo. Ever. He is, to every detail, the Quasimodo described in Hugo's book. As far as the performances, both have more than their share of pathos and emotion, but, even as a diehard Chaney fan, I have the give the slight edge to Laughton, though he did, remember, have the benefit of sound; Lon did not, and he still made your eyes fill up more than once. Laughton turns in one of his finest portrayals here, one that stays with you. He also provides several teary moments, most notably the final line. (and SHAME on you reviewers who gave it away! You robbed a new viewer of one of the most emotional moments on film) The rest of the cast is very good to competent, the phtotgraphy superb, and as a whole, the film holds up remarkably well. A must-own, along with Chaney's version, of course. Interestingly, neither the Chaney or Laughton versions stick to the book insofar as the endings went. The inferior Anthony Quinn version, however, did.
Rating:
Summary: Sorry but it doesn't ring my bells.
Review: One of cinema's most renowned classics, "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" , relies upon nostalgic sentimentality to draw the viewer. Once we begin to view a work in this context one begins to shed the critical aspects. This movie is one such instance. There is only one thing to recommend this movie to a modern audience and that is Charles Laughton's exquisite performance. Like all other Gothic tales of horror from the early studio archives the brutish images that so mesmerised the infantile mind have lingered in the memory. It is for this reason we revist these classics, as much to recapture childhood awe as to revel in the movie makers art. If not for the performance of Laughton and the terrific makeup there would be little to recommend in this film. Yes, the sets are lavish and the costumes do captivate. One must also commend the cinematographer for conveying some marvelous images. Yet this is not enough to propel a vehicle beyond the ordinary cinematic experience. There must be substantive character and plot development in order to complement the visual experience. This is the "Hunchback's" greatest flaw. William Dieterle (Director) has obviously conceded that the audience is overly familiar with the storyline and has decided to concentrate on pageant rather than plot. Indeed, the accompanying documentary on DVD shows some telling contemporary reviews which sum up the disappointing aspects of this film quite lucidly (you will have to use your pause and frame advance to read the article) which reads as follows: "Dieterle sketched his assignment against a sweeping background of sets and crowd movement, which while effective as such, does not provide sufficiently for story development and definition of characters." A sentiment, I have to agree, which is spot on. One other aspect which modern audiences may find uncomfortable is the rather annoying score. While in some instances the soundtrack has a sensual quality which is rather affecting, in moments of screen action the scoring becomes quite overwhelming, a rather nasty trend in forties cinema. The documentary on the DVD version has only one flaw, Ms. O'Hara has more to tell than the producers were willing to impart. When one considers that the DVD is two to three times the cost of the VHS version it is the special features that will sell the product. A few more "Bonuses" on this title would go a long way to recommend buying it.
Rating: 
Summary: A Film About Enlightenment and Reason
Review: RKO's 1939 Hunchback of Notre Dame with Charles Laughton is a pleasant mixture of literary renaissance France and of Hollywood. Saliant points within the dialogue convey many of author Victor Hugo's sentiments, while director William Dieterle and company never lose sight of the fact that the movie is entertainment. It is not within the scope of any reviewer, who may dislike the movie, to go further by presuming to know why others do like it. Such assumptions are an exercise in arrogant arm chair psychology.
Rating:
Summary: Hollywood Hugo
Review: Some of Hugo's sentiments about the vicitimizing of people by superstition (religion), society, and nature (Quasimodo's physical defects) are sprinkled throughout the script.I must agree though with the Sherbrooke, Que reviewer's point in his or her entertaining critique that the script went in the direction of a simple treatise on human rights. The more upbeat aspects invented by the film makers were in keeping with the formula of the time for better or worse. Perhaps the aspect dealing with human rights reflected the political climate of 1939 when Facism and Japanese aggression in China were in full force. I too, however, doubt that any king would have encouraged the people to educate themselves and rebel. Overall I love this film's style in look and performance and am forgiving in its thwarting of Hugo.
Rating:
Summary: Laughton's "Hunchback" the overlooked film CLASSIC of 1939
Review: That's right! 1939 is considered the greatest year of Hollywood films. Gone With The Wind (color), The Wizard of Oz (color), Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Stagecoach, Wuthering Heights and The Hunchback of Notre Dame to name a few. With this competition and a horror theme "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" was lost in the shuffle. In summary this masterful movie has been digitally restored and placed on DVD for superior picture & sound. Victor Hugo's "Hunchback" was perfectly cast with Charles Laughton as Quasimodo the deaf & disfigured bell ringer of Notre Dame. The beautiful Maureen O'Hara (US debut at 19)as the gypsy girl, Esmeralda. The villian Frollo (the Chief Justice of Paris) played expertly by Sir Cedric Hardwicke. The story, the sets and castings chemistry rival any of the before mentioned films of 1939. To appreciate Hollywood's Golden Age and the acting talent which was at its Paramount watch and enjoy this greatest film Classic of Victor Hugo's "The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939)".
|
