Flyerplesys Perfectly adorable

HeadlinesExotic Boring

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

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

kriitikko In the 15'Th century Paris, a young priest named Claude Frollo finds a horribly deformed child abounded in the Cathedral of Notre Dame. Frollo names the child Quasimodo and raises him in the church. 25 years later Frollo has become the Archdeacon of Notre Dame and Quasimodo the bellringer, who amongst the citizens of Paris is also known as "the Hunchback". During the Feast of Fools, a young gypsy dancer Esmeralda unintentionally wakes the carnal desires inside of Frollo. She also gains the attentions of Quasimodo, a poet Gringoire and Captain Phoebus of King's guards.This 1982 TV movie of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" is an interesting mix of Victor Hugo's book and previous movies of the story. During some parts of the film the story seems to be very close to Hugo's book, whereas in others it seems to follow the footsteps of the famous 1939 version. Not only that, but film does include some ideas of its own. Frollo's pupil Philippe never appeared in the book or other movies, and this is the only version along with the Disney movie where Esmeralda gives Quasimodo a kiss.Technically the movie is quite well done for a TV production. Replica of Notre Dame is extremely well made, but some scenes really suffer. In other versions the Feast of Fools has always been presented as an extremely festive event, but here I see none of it. Almost looks like there's not a single person in Paris who would want to celebrate. Also the Court of Miracles scene is a letdown. On the other hand, the angry mob invading Notre Dame is surprisingly well managed.As for cast, the film includes two amazing performances from Anthony Hopkins and Derek Jacobi. Hopkins, nearly a decade before his fame as Hannibal Lecter, goes right there with the first Lon Chaney as my favorite Quasimodo. You can hardly recognize the man under all the makeup but he really puts passion to his role and makes a touching performance. The scene of Quasimodo crying after receiving water from Esmeralda, and later when we see how ashamed he is of his ugliness when near her, are truly heartbreaking ones. Jacobi completely nails the character of Claude Frollo, showing a priest dedicated for God, but who becomes obsessed of a girl who woke his hidden needs. Jacobi is fantastic in the role, showing a good man on his journey to madness. His scene with Esmeralda in the dungeon shows actual torment and conflict.Rest of the cast is so and so. I was really excited to see David "Hercule Poirot" Suchet as Clopin, but the film keeps his part frustratingly short and Suchet doesn't really have any chances to explore the role. Pity, because he does look great for the part. Robert Powell is a great actor and he does capture the egoistic gambler and skirt-chaser that Phoebus is, but he doesn't look right to the part for me. Biggest disappointment comes from Lesley-Anne Down as Esmeralda. Not only is she the weakest link of the cast but she also lacks the looks. She is pretty, but not pretty enough to make entire Paris drool after her. Her dance scene is a big disappointment, no thrill whatsoever. Gerry Sundquist is okay as Gringoire but that's it. I certainly fail to see why he should get Esmeralda. Tim Piggot-Smith's invented character Philippe serves no purpose in the story.The film is lacking in some parts but is decent to watch and it does have two remarkable performances from Hopkins and Jacobi, which alone are worth seeing for. Also during Esmeralda's trial scene you can enjoy cameos of Nigel Hawthorne as Judge and John Gielgud as the Inquisitor.

joanmarieherbers How is it possible that such a brilliant cast could make such a bad adaptation of a classic novel? Anthony Hopkins is not allowed to put any real life into Quasimodo, and Derek Jacobi just barely lets us see into his tortured soul. Lesley-Anne Down is laughable as an actress, although breathtakingly beautiful. The real surprise here is David Suchet, who plays a character utterly unlike any we are used to -- a far cry from Poirot!Why was I disappointed? The sound is terrible, the cuts between scenes disjointed, the scenery poorly constructed, and the actors are hemmed in by a terrible script. We are not given insight to the relationship between Quasimodo and the Archdeacon, nor between Pierre and Esmerelda. Tim Piggott-Smith has about the best character development, and he is a secondary character at best.Cameos by such luminaries as John Gielgud and Nigel Hawthorne heightened the disappointment even more. This one is really a stinker and a waste of England's best talent.

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.