The Hunchback of Notre Dame

Rating:
Summary: Surprisingly faithful, surprisingly good
Review: Strangely, there has never been a bad film of Victor Hugo's classic tale, and while this is indeed less successful than Laughton, Chaney or Disney's versions, this French effort is still a surprisingly good and much under-rated film. To get the most out of it, you have to bear in mind that Hugo did not write a horror story but a tale of unrequited love and anguish. There is little of the Gothic on show here; rather, everyone is trapped by a desire for what they are denied. This is much more 'Notre Dame de Paris' (the novel's actual title) than 'The Hunchback of Notre Dame': Quasimodo probably gets less screen time here than in any of the other films, only dominating the drama in the last third. Instead, as with Hugo, it uses the cathedral of Notre Dame as the thread that binds all social stratas - Kings and beggars, thieves and soldiers, gypsies and alchemists, playwrights and aristocrats - giving a vivid portrait of a time and place half imagined, half real.

Quinn is more of a brute than we're used to seeing in our Quasimodos: unlike Laughton, he's no poetic soul trapped in a broken body but an animal who is given an inkling of what it means to be human. Lollabrigida fares better than usual as Esmerelda, and if their relationship is never moving, the ending, for once taken directly from the novel, is genuinely touching.

There are problems: the dubbing is at times irritating (and there is no French-language option on the disc), while Jean Danet is quite the most embarrassing Phoebus imaginable, stilted, impossibly smug and just plain odd-looking. Some key scenes are poorly staged, most notably Quasimodo's rescue of Esmerelda, while the hunchback is not given a strong entrance. But, if you're willing to take a chance and watch it with an open mind, the pleasant surprises outweigh them. While not the most lavish version, the scale and colour of the film, particularly in scenes such as the Court of Miracles, gives us a sense of a world around these characters, the addition of CinemaScope and some impressive sets helping to broaden the scale. Delannoy's direction is occasionally imaginative, with a good eye for the Scope frame. The script (co-written by 'Les Enfants du Paradis' Jacques Prevert) is often witty and doesn't shy from the darker tragic tone of the novel. Georges Auric's score, though ill-served by the original sound recording, is also a fine effort.

The transfer is good, with only a few edge enhancement problems, although it seems very slightly cropped in some shots, and the failings of the early CinemaScope lenses do result in an occasional loss of detail in some shots. The DVD even includes one brief torture sequence that has long been cut from many prints, as well as the original theatrical trailer.

Kept out of distribution for years (Disney bought the rights around the time they were working on their version and shelved it), the film has not been able to gain much of a reputation. Indeed, it continues to get short shrift from many critics - 'Time Out's film guide is particularly hostile. But, as they say in Britain, 'Time Out hated it, so it must be good.' And it is - not great, but certainly pretty good.

Rating:
Summary: Faithfull
Review: This is the first version of the movie and in my humble opinion, the best. I say this for one reason and one reason only, and that is that its the only version that ends the way the novel does. Without spoiling it I'll just say that its tragic yet the most romantic imaginable!!

Rating:
Summary: This version runs a distant last place with all the other ve
Review: While filmed in color, this version does not have the same menace as the Chaney and Laughton versions. Although in some areas' it follows Hugo's story better than the other versions. Quinn gives a good try, but Chaney is the best!

Rating:
Summary: More like the "Stoopedback" of Notre Dame
Review: While this version of Victor Hugo's novel is more true to the tragic story than most, this version suffers from lackluster performances, slow pacing and some awkward dubbing. Anthony Quinn's performance in the title role suggests a cheap thug rather than the beautiful soul trapped in a hideous body. Gina Lollobrigida is full of sex appeal as the ill-fated gypsy dancer, Esmeralda, but she comes across like too much the tart, and not the innocent of the novel. While the photography is lovely, this film suffers in comparision to the other major versions of this classic tale. I would recommend this film only if you want to compare it with the other versions. Otherwise, see any of those instead.

Rating:
Summary: More like the "Stoopedback" of Notre Dame
Review: While this version of Victor Hugo's novel is more true to the tragic story than most, this version suffers from lackluster performances, slow pacing and some awkward dubbing. Anthony Quinn's performance in the title role suggests a cheap thug rather than the beautiful soul trapped in a hideous body. Gina Lollobrigida is full of sex appeal as the ill-fated gypsy dancer, Esmeralda, but she comes across like too much the tart, and not the innocent of the novel. While the photography is lovely, this film suffers in comparision to the other major versions of this classic tale. I would recommend this film only if you want to compare it with the other versions. Otherwise, see any of those instead.