The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1956) User Reviews

Anthony Quinn, in full monster regalia, remains in the memory...

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 8/10 · 5 February 2004]

'Notre Dame De Paris,' set in medieval Paris in the year 1482, tells the moving story of a beautiful gypsy dancer and a grateful hunchback who adores her...

Quinn's distinctive interpretation of the ward of the cathedral in the sumptuous, wide-screen, full-color version of the Victor Hugo successful historical novel, is full of vitality as well as pity...

Despite the spectacular appearance of Gina Lollobrigida, top-billed as Esmeralda, it is Quinn in full monster regalia who remains in the memory, not many lengths behind Lon Chaney and Charles Laughton...

The motion picture is focused on the events leading to Esmeralda's trial for witchcraft and the stabbing of her noble lover, the cavalier of King Louis XI... Esmeralda is accused of the crime, tortured and sentenced to death... When she is about to be hanged, Quasimodo pushes the hangman aside, sweeps her into his arms, and carries her into the sanctuary of Notre Dame...

Much of the rich atmosphere so vividly described in the Hugo irresistible tale - the happy Festival of the Fools, the Court of Miracles, the cathedral and its role as the center of medieval Paris, the storming of Notre Dame - provide the spectacle a timeless message of lust, jealousy, prejudice, hate, compassion and love...

Quasimodo is just 'one long, ugly face from his head to his toes,' but in his distorted body, there is lot of humanity, kindness, and gratitude... Quasimodo lives high in the church towers... We see him exceptionally agile, showing no fear for its height, climbing down its facade, embracing its huge bell, telling Esmeralda in halting words that she is safe within the walls of the cathedral... That day, Quasimodo leaps onto 'Big Louise' and rides his beloved huge bell back and forth sending its mighty sound throughout Paris for his beloved Esmeralda...

Esmeralda is the sensuous gypsy girl, who ascends the pillory to quench Quasimodo's thirst... She is fond of dancing, noise and open air... She is in love with one man whom she calls the 'bright sun.'

Master Frollo (Alain Cuny) is the man in black who inspires respect and fear... He is the haunted Archdeacon of Notre Dame, an expert on witchcraft... It is said that he is the greatest magician of all France, but magic is merely illusion... Frollo is completely taken with Esmeralda's beauty... He is the king's judge who lies about the ravishing temptress who follows him in his dreams... His thoughts are like Quasimodo's face, ugly! ('We are brothers.. your face and my soul..')

Phoebus (Jean Danet) is vain, arrogant, and opportunistic... To him, the Gypsy girl is a sexual object to be cynically manipulated, used and rejected... The only love which the Captain of the King's Archers recognizes is narcissism... His tendency to erotic self-love and his excessive self-admiration...

Robert Hirsch is the harmless poet - educated under the patronage of Master Frollo - who breaks the laws of the kingdom of thieves and beggars, and has one chance to live...

'Notre Dame De Paris' shows us that human nature always struggles between two opposing forces: The light and the darkness, the grotesque and the beautiful, love and hate, hope and despair...

A Story Of Innocence

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 9 May 2008]

In this third version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame we get a story far closer to the truth of Victor Hugo's classic novel. Unlike the productions done starring Lon Chaney and Charles Laughton, this one was done in France by the French who took pains to remain faithful to the version Victor Hugo wrote.

Note the title in the original French and note it's the cathedral not the hunchback who is the center of the story. That allowed Italian film star Gina Lollobrigida to be billed first and then Anthony Quinn as the hunchback. No doubt about it Lollobrigida is the sexiest Esmerelda going, she makes both Patsy Ruth Miller and Maureen O'Hara look like nuns. Then again she was who the movie going public was paying to see.

This is not to take anything away from Anthony Quinn who seems to extend his role as the brutish strong man in La Strada into his portrayal of Quasimodo. Although Charles Laughton's performance is my favorite, this does not denigrate Quinn in any way.

The rest of the cast is made up of players from the French cinema. I particularly liked Jean Tissier as the 'Spider King' Louis XI. It's a subtle piece of acting and you can see why this was no man to trifle with.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a tale of innocence. Quasimodo's to be sure, but even the sexy and voluptuous Esmerelda. She may know all about sex, but she's pretty ignorant in the ways of the political world. Both protagonists are used by forces and people they cannot comprehend.

This version of the Victor Hugo classic has its supporters and they should support this great retelling of a classic tale.

French version based on popular novel by Victor Hugo in which a hunchback provides sanctuary to a gorgeous gypsy

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 14 December 2012]

Slow and sometimes boring retelling of the Victor Hugo novel that packs an all-star-cast and spectacular scenes . The timeless tale of the seductive gypsy Esmeralda and the tortured hunchback Quasimodo with Anthony Quin in a overacting and tragic performance along with bombshell Gina Lollobrigida who displays a little credible interpretation . It is set in fifteenth century Paris, 1482 . Today is the festival of the fools, taking place like each year in the square outside Cathedral Notre Dame . Among jugglers and other entertainers is Esmeralda (Gina Lollobrigida ,this was the first time she spoke her lines in French with a strong Italian accent) and her goat (co-female star of the film with Gina Lollobrigida, was insured for two million francs) . From up in a tower of the cathedral, Frollo (Alain Cuny stealing the movie as an old cleric) , an alchemist and archdeacon , gazes at her lustfully . The hot-blooded young gypsy is accused by Church officials of being witch and the deformed Parisian bellringer provides her sanctuary . The freakish hunchback named Quasimodo , falls in love with the young gypsy queen, Esmeralda, who in turn is in love with Phoebus, a gentleman soldier and a rogue with the ladies . Unknown to him, his love is dangerous, because Frollo has lustful obsession for Esmeralda and is willing to kill the handsome soldier to possess her. But the hunchback will tolerate no harm coming to her , not even if it comes from his own master . Meanwhile , the gypsy king plots to foment a peasant revolt, which eventually leads to the peasants storming the Cathedral of Notre Dame .

This French of Victor Hugo's ever popular novel with classical characters such as an appropriately gypsy and a deformed bell ringer . Best French retelling infused with sadness , sweep , intense drama , and an attempt at capturing a degree of spirited Hugoesque detail . Good performance from Anthony Quinn , famous for his contortions and expressive gestures via make-up . Quinn gives a textured , pre-Zorba , the Greek interpretation of Quasimodo , the Hunchback in Hugo's eponymous novel ; however , he displays a lot of gesticulation . Mediocre acting by Gina Lollobrigida as Esmeralda, a sensuous gypsy who performs a bewitching dance in front of delighted spectators. Great performances all around at charge of a good support cast . Shot simultaneously in French and English-speaking version, but it looks as if the English one was not used . The scene of Quasimodo's coronation was shot twice for each version of the film. For the original French-language version, he is crowned 'Pope of Fools', as in the novel, and wears a mock Papal tiara , for the English-language version, he is crowned 'King of Fools', and wears a royal crown ; this was because the American Hays Code forbade mocking of the clergy . This properly melodramatic flick packs a colorful cinematography filmed entirely in France in Cinemascope by Michel Kelber ; being necessary a right remastering . The sweeping musical score was provided by the classic Georges Auric . The motion picture was professionally directed by Jean Delannoy , but with no originality .

This is a remake of several earlier films , including the followings : 1923 silent vintage retelling by Wallace Wolsey with Lon Chaney Sr ; classic version by William Dieterle (1939) with Maureen O'Hara , Charles Laughton , Edmond O'Brien and Cedric Hardwicke . And subsequently realized for TV as 1982 rendition with Anthony Hopkins , Derek Jacobi and Lesley-Anne Down and 1998 by Peter Medak with Salma Hayek and Mandy Patinkin . Finally , Walt Disney cartoon recounting by Kirk Wise and Gary Trousdale with voices by Tom Hulce , Demi Moore and Kevin Kline , it was followed by another Disney sequel .

Read the book.

[PWNYCNY · 6/10 · 26 May 2012]

This is a movie that has all the trappings of an epic, but isn't. But it is still a credible rendition of the Victor Hugo classic, with Gina Lollobrigida giving a strong performance as Esmeralda. The weak part of the movie is Anthony Quinn's performance as Quasimodo. Mr. Quinn's portrayal is not believable. Quasimodo is supposed to generate feelings of pathos; that does not happen in this movie. As a result, the plot becomes flat. The intensity of the relationship between Quasimodo and Esmeralda is lacking. Between Mr. Quinn's mumbling of his lines, and the treatment of the poet Gringoire as a buffoon, the movie teeters on the brink of cinematic collapse. Yet, it is saved by staying faithful to the original story and by good performances by some of the supporting cast, as well as by the essential power of the original story. The story of the hunchback and the gypsy girl is classic; read the book.

Notre-Dame de Paris (1956)

[SnakesOnAnAfricanPlain · 6/10 · 13 December 2011]

The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a very hard film to make. Mostly due to the darkness and despair of the original work. If you've only grown up with the Disney version, prepare to be shocked. I truly liked this effort, as it got a lot of the complexities of each character down. Frollo is a man of religion but also science. His faith and logical mind battling it out as he experiences lust. Esmerelda is a victim of her own beauty, but also plays a hand in her own downfall. She doesn't understand her power over men which leads to her angering of the males. Quasimodo is portrayed as not so much an outcast here. He is known by all, but is awkward and unaware of his strength. This is a film where everyone is guilty for their actions, which also makes them all sympathetic. The design of the film is often too much. WIth so many colors and such production put in it comes across as an over the top school production. Less can be more, but with the final heart wrenching scene, you'll probably be left as an emotional wreck.

Evil Destiny

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 25 December 2009]

In 1482, in the Feast of Fools in Paris, the deformed bell ringer Quasimodo (Anthony Quinn) is elected the King of Fools. After the party, the evil alchemist Master Claude Frollo (Alain Cuny), who has a repressed lust for the kind gypsy dancer Esmeralda (Gina Lollobrigida), orders his servant Quasimodo to abduct the beautiful youngster. However, she is rescued by Captain Phoebus (Jean Danet) and Quasimodo is sentenced to be whipped in the square of Notre Dame and Esmeralda gives water to him. Later Esmeralda goes with Captain Phoebus to a room in an inn to spend a night of love together. However, Frollo is stalking her and uses her stiletto to stab Phoebus on his back, and Esmeralda takes the blame and is sentenced to be hanged. But Quasimodo brings Esmeralda to the sanctuary of Notre Dame and expresses his love for the gypsy.

"The Hunchback of Notre Dame" is one of the cruelest romances of the literature and cinema history in a dark age in French history. In this version of this sad tale of injustice, Anthony Quinn is awesome with a memorable performance and Gina Lollobrigida is perfect in the role of the seductive gypsy. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "O Corcunda de Notre Dame" ("The Hunchback of Notre Dame")

Revisiting the classics

[dbdumonteil · 1 January 2007]

Non -French users may find it hard to believe it,but Jean Delannoy is despised by almost everybody in his native country.The NOuvelle Vague clique,on H.M. JL GOdard's service ,was always putting him down.That was (and is) certainly unfair cause Delannoy made two great "Maigret" and some of his works "la Symphonie Pastorale " Dieu A Besoin des Hommes" or "les Amitiés Particulières" are certainly worth a watch.His "secret de Mayerling" which is hard to find is certainly interesting too.

Lit classics were also one of his favorite genres: abetted by Jean Cocteau,he updated "Tristan and Iseut" (as "l'Eternel Retour" ).Later he would transfer Madame de La Fayette 's "La Princesse de Clèves" (1961) with commendable results -the critics slagged it off- Here he tackles "Notre Dame de Paris" ,with a big budget (wide screen , color and an international cast were not so common in 1956 in France).His version is academic ,as would be Le Chanois's -another Bete Noire of the Nouvelle Vague- "les miserables " (1958).It's icily impersonal ,and it's the actors who save the movie from tedium:although too old ,Lollobrigida has beauty,charm,sensuality and even wit going for her;Quinn is a good -but not as outstanding as Charles Laughton-Quasimodo;Robert Hirsh is excellent as Gringoire;On the other hand,Jean Danet is a mediocre Phoebus.

Although inferior to Dieterle's version ,Delannoy's work is more faithful to the novel (the ending notably) but there's a problem concerning Claude Frollo:why has he become a layman?Part of the reason might be found in the director's belief.Jean Delannoy is a true believer: in "Dieu a Besoin des Hommes" he showed spiritual concern.And recently,he released two religious movies in a row " Bernadette" (Soubirous) and "Marie de Nazareth".So maybe ,he changed Hugo's character because it was unbearable to him that a priest should desire a woman.

Alain Cuny,whose portrayal of FRollo is a bit monotonous, had a brilliant career ,from Carné's "Les Visiteurs du Soir" to Fellini's "La Dolce Vita" and "Satyricon".

Not bad at all

[danpatter2002 · 7/10 · 21 July 2002]

This version of the Hugo novel is more faithful in both tone and plot than is the earlier Charles Laughton version. That said, it's not nearly as much fun.

La Lollo is quite fetching and earnest as Esmeralda and gives an effective, if slightly bosom-heaving, performance. Quinn, with his simian features accented by makeup, is a good Hunchback. He doesn't milk the role for pathos, and let's the viewer see several sides to Quasimodo. Alain Cuny is dark and brooding as Frollo, but he doesn't register as vividly as Cedric Hardwick in the earlier version.

Then there's some pretty bad acting from others in cast, but the script is pretty flat and misses some good opportunities. In the earlier version, Laughton (his double, actually) swings across the plaza, scoops up Esmeralda (the gorgeous Maureen O'Hara) and swings back into the church. Quinn just shinnies down a rope and yanks Lollo into the church. More probable, perhaps, but not so exciting.

It's a gorgeous, colorful widescreen epic, nicely served by the DVD release. It's not a sentimental movie; neither is the novel. And it's worth a kind look.

A sumptuous, faithful screen version of a masterpiece

[ricbigi · 8/10 · 11 January 2006]

No matter if critics seem to prefer the 1939 version of THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, I thoroughly enjoy this one. Anthony Quinn avoids taking the Laughton path and doing Quasimodo as a monster; his is a painfully realistic performance. Gina Lollobrigida is ever so beautiful as Esmeralda. Her gypsy is a young woman who is "a queen", as her fellow Court of Miracle friends know very well. She is sensual and yet decent and pure in her actions, even as she gives herself to Phoebus. The great cast includes several legendary French actors (Valentine Tessier, Alain Cuny, Madeleine Barbulee, among others). The final scenes are indeed touching, especially in the Italian version, in which Lollobrigida speaks in her native language. A must see.

Not the best, but does come closest to the book

[kriitikko · 7/10 · 21 February 2009]

It's no wonder that people who have been introduced to the story of "the Hunchback of Notre Dame" by big movie versions, like the 1939 classic or 1996 Disney animation, don't often know what really happens in Victor Hugo's classic book "Notre Dame de Paris". I have seen totally six different movie version of the story, and although none of them is completely bad, only one has actually been really accurate to the events of the book.

Although I will always say that the 1939 Hollywood version is the absolute best, this 1956 French/Italian film is closest to the book, as far as plot is concerned. Esmeralda does not fall in love with Gringoire, it's Claude Frollo and not his brother Jehan who lusts after Esmeralda and in the end almost all the main characters die. Yet, in a strange way, it does make some subtle differences also. Esmeralda is not young and innocent girl unaware of the reactions she causes in men. This Esmeralda is more mature, yet even she can't help but fall under Phoebus' charm. Claude Frollo is not an archdeacon, filmmakers probably still afraid of making a priest the villain. Instead he is an alchemist who has lived in the tower of Notre Dame almost his whole life. This is kind of strange since it's said in the film "he is in disgrace with the church". It also diminishes bit of the conflict that happens in him when he becomes obsessed of Esmeralda.

Still, I'm sure fans of Hugo can enjoy this version, if they are ready to forgive the few artistic liberties. For a film made in Europe that obviously doesn't have the big budget Hollywood could use, the sets of Notre Dame's cathedral and the 15'Th century Paris are surprisingly well done. Although the low budget does make some scenes suffer, like Quasimodo' "Sanctuary! Sanctuary!"- scene, Jean Delannoy's direction keeps the story going and Georges Auric's music is beautiful to listen to. However some of the English dub does bother in the film that really should have been released in French.

The Italian actress Gina Lollobrigida, ones called "the Most Beautiful Woman in the World", plays the more mature and sensual Esmeralda, and she makes it very clear why half the Paris is drooling after her. I was surprised to see how little makeup Anthony Quinn wears as Quasimodo, yet he completely convinces that this person has been seen as a freak his whole life. His performance is very physical, making Quasimodo seem like a beast who tries to be human, instead of Charles Laughton's poetic soul. Alain Cuny is bit too brooding as Frollo, but he does look up to part. Still, I feel screenplay didn't give him enough chances to fully explore the role. Jean Danet as Phoebus is not really anything but a jerk full of himself, but since that's how I see Phoebus I have nothing against him. Philippe Clay seems nothing like the Clopin I pictured from the book, yet there's something about his rather humorous performance that I like. Jean Tissier also makes a very subtle and slimy performance as King Louis XI, who in previous 1939 film was portrayed as a rather good guy. Robert Hirsch as Gringoire is not memorable and Maurice Sarfati as Jehan is simply annoying.

Although the 1956 film is neither the best nor the finest version of the story, it does come closest to the book than any other film I've seen and is definitely worth watching. It's not a bad film, yet it could have been far better also.

EDIT: I recently saw original French speaking version of this film. I recommend seeing that one. Not only because they speak French so you don't have to bare the horrible English dub, but it also has scenes that were deleted from English cut and Alain Cuny shows a lot more torment and conflict as Frollo.

Disappointing on many levels.

[eroskitten · 3/10 · 15 May 2007]

This film is another substandard adaptation.

It is like almost every other movie based on Hugo's novel: not faithful to the story. Characters are out of character and their roles have changed. While probably talented otherwise, the actors seem to have no control over their roles. Not one of them plays their part accordingly. However, they are not wholly to blame. The script is poorly written under the pretext of faithfulness.

The actors are making an effort. But they are definitely, definitely, out of character.

Esmeralda is among the worst interpretations. She is highly sexualized, even flirtatious; she is almost sophisticated in the matters of love. Here, she is no longer the innocent girl of Hugo's novel. She therefore loses the most lovable, endearing quality of her character. Lollobrigida has the other quality: her beauty. Yet this beauty is not enough to carry Esmeralda believably. This is an almost utter failure.

A true failure is the portrayal of Claude Frollo. A MAJOR mistake in plot is made here; Jehan, his brother, is "archbishop" in this film. In the novel, Jehan is a low-life, a scholar whose only thoughts are turned toward physical needs. He causes constant pain to Frollo, who is actually the Archdeacon in the text. Jehan is just another reason for the priest's madness, not a tool to satisfy it. Character-wise, he is the same as most Frollo's. He is played evil, painted diabolic, cut down into a one dimensional, unsympathetic personage. The audience can no longer decide for itself what his feelings truly are; the priest is lustful, vengeful, villainous. He looks at his handiwork concerning Esmeralda with joy in this film. By the final act, he has been driven mad; but it also causes him pain in the novel. Esmeralda's pain is his pain, yet he –MUST- do these things. He is lustful, yet the glimmer of love is almost visible. The film destroys that depth, that ambiguity.

The other actors are on the same track, yet not quite as severe. The script is shallow at some points, and seems to be missing something.

Dubbing quality is undoubtedly imperfect. The film is also low budget, so the unhappy state of costuming and set can be forgiven to an extent.

Some viewers may find this version enjoyable. It is a film after all; many have never read the Hugo novel, Notre Dame de Paris. However, die-hard fans and purists will be left unsatisfied.

"So come up to the lab " for some spectacular cinematic alchemy!

[DrMMGilchrist · 9/10 · 4 November 2009]

The opening of this film – relating the finding of the word 'Ananké' (which the English-language narrator irritatingly mispronounces as 'Anankh'!) on the wall of the cathedral – signals that Jean Delannoy has given us the best cinema version of 'Notre Dame de Paris' yet. It is the closest in spirit to the book in picaresque colour and in its final tragedies. *Some spoilers follow, comparing the book and the film, and touching upon other film adaptations.*

While international distribution (especially in the US) meant that Delannoy still had to fudge Claude's priesthood (being addressed as "Maître/Master Frollo"), his sober dress and the fact he works in Notre Dame make it implicit – indeed, obvious to anyone familiar with the book, as French audiences are. His younger brother Jehan is thus restored to his (im)proper and impish self as a wastrel student (Maurice Sarfati), who first appears dressed as an imp for the Feast of Fools. (In the 1923 and 1939 versions, Jehan became a middle-aged substitute for his brother in his relationship with Esméralda.) There are, nevertheless, differences between the French and English versions. Because of the Hays Code, Quasimodo is made *King* of Fools, *not* Pope, in the English dub, the scene being shot with two different crowns. The French version also includes scenes with Pierre after Esméralda's arrest, and an extended scene of Claude's breakdown, returning to La Falourdel's, corresponding to the book's chapter 'Fièvre' – presumably cut because the English title overemphasises Quasimodo.

Anthony Quinn and Gina Lollobrigida have top billing, but Alain Cuny quietly dominates the film – as he should. Claude, not Quasimodo, is the most interesting central character: the brilliant, tormented scholar and scientist as Romantic tragic hero/anti-hero. Although over a decade too old for the role, Cuny has the right air of anguished intensity and self-destructive passion. Even as he brings suffering on others, he himself suffers still more deeply, all haunted eyes and strong cheekbones. (An acquaintance observed his hairstyle is too 1950s, but the anachronism is less significant than the fact he has so much hair at all: book-Claude's hair has receded into his tonsure!) This is the only film version that shows his alchemical researches, and sets Louis XI's incognito visit, as 'Compère Tourangeau', in his laboratory, rather than in his rooms in the cloisters. This atmospheric scene captivated me when I first saw the film on TV as a child, and as a teenager I fell in love with Claude in the book (recognising a fellow-Aspie). My chief regret is that (as usual) the passionate confrontation in prison from 'Lasciate Ogni Speranza' is omitted: this Claude is certainly handsome enough for some chest-baring cassock-ripping… He gives us the film's most memorable moments: his rapt face framed by the broken window of the Grande Salle of the Palais de Justice, while in the adjacent pane we see the reflection of what grips his attention – Esméralda dancing; how he intones her name over his experiments (which reminds me of Ezra Pound's marvellous 'The Alchemist: Chant for the Transmutation of Metals': "Midonz, gift of the God, gift of the light,/gift of the amber of the sun,/Give light to the metal"); his torment at La Falourdel's, watching Phoebus (Jean Danet, suitably smug and flashy) seduce Esméralda; scratching 'Ananké' on the wall, watched by an uncomprehending Quasimodo; returning to the cathedral by moonlight, and crossing himself (cut from the English-language dub) when he sees Esméralda in ghostly white. In his last moments, he stretches out his arms, crucified by his forbidden desires, before falling. It is a superb performance, unshowy, but emotionally wrenching.

Gina Lollobrigida is somewhat mature and overtly sexy to be entirely convincing as a virginal teenager, but she has glamour, vitality, and (with choreography by Myasin/Massine) dances better than most screen Esméraldas. It is believable that an otherwise ascetic and intellectual priest could be driven to crime and madness for such a beauty. Of course, with such a bright and spirited Esméralda, the question remains as to how she can be so stupid as to fall for Phoebus's smarmy charms, but that is part of the tragedy of the book – and, indeed, such calamities happen in life. Her comic relationship with Pierre Gringoire (Robert Hirsch) is delightful, with a very cute Djali as the third party in their 'marriage'. It is wonderful to see so much of Pierre, without him being rewritten as a conventional romantic lead (as in 1939 and 1982). Clopin is played somewhat younger than usual by Philippe Clay: Villon-esque, a figure from Bosch or Breughel. Quinn is the best film Quasimodo: alarming and touching by turns, unsentimentalised, and believable. Unlike Chaney or Laughton, whose deformities were far too exaggerated, he looks as if he could have survived childhood in 15C. He is deaf, and seems to have learning disabilities, as the book implies. Fleur-de-Lys (Danielle Dumont) and her friends, in their henins and colourful gowns, look as if they could have stepped out of an illuminated manuscript. Phoebus is as obnoxious and shallow as written: only in the English dub is he softened slightly by being made to regret that he could not have saved Esméralda himself.

The last part of the story is truncated because of the running-time, hence the change in the events at the Bastille, and in the circumstances of Esméralda and Clopin's deaths. However, it is still far more effective than the bowdlerised 'happier' endings imposed by the 1923, 1939, 1982, 1996 and 1997 versions. The conclusion at Montfaucon is retained, and is movingly portrayed. All in all, this is a thoroughly enjoyable film, which gives a better impression of the novel than any other cinema adaptation to date, and confirms my belief that French literature usually fares best in the hands of French film-makers.

A little disappointing but better than it's given credit for

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 7 December 2013]

The best version of Victor Hugo's classic The Hunchback of Notre Dame(or Notre Dame de Paris) will to me always be Charles Laughton's version, followed by Disney's(very underrated, adaptation-wise there are much more faithful ones but on its own- a much fairer way to judge- it is a wonderful film), Lon Chaney's and Anthony Hopkins'. But there are worse too, there are a few low budget animated versions that range from very poor to mediocre. This version has a lot of good things but also its foibles. The foibles are in particular some sloppy and not really necessary dubbing and the underwhelming rescue of Esmeralda/ Sanctuary scene of any of the adaptations of the book, a far cry from the goose-bump-inducing power that the Laughton and Disney versions had. Jean Danet's Phoebus manages to be incredibly irritating- especially how overly smug he is- and dull, yes even for a character that already is shallow. The film looks great though, there is some great attention to detail and photography, the colour is beautiful. Georges Auric's score is subtly haunting with some rousing parts though personally his score for La Belle Et La Bete is a much better film score from him. The scripting is literate and the direction is hardly an amateur job though a couple of scenes do show a lack of imagination(the Sanctuary scene faring the worst). The story is very faithful in spirit- without being bogged down by being too much so- to the book, the most faithful versions on the whole are between this and Hopkins', unfortunately there is the omission of Frollo and Esmeralda's prison scene which agreed is a pivotal scene that would added much to the two characters. It was really interesting to see Frollo's alchemy and the ending is incredibly moving(the most so perhaps of all the adaptations) and brilliantly executed. There could have been more of Esmeralda and Quasimodo's relationship, but there is still a sense of Esmeralda seeing through Quasimodo's deformity and seeing him for his good qualities, which was touching. The acting is not bad at all mostly, and they are helped by that their characters are not distorted and have flaws instead of being too perfect. Anthony Quinn makes for a deeply felt Quasimodo and Gina Lollobrigida(looking astonishingly gorgeous) is a sensual if not so innocent Esmeralda. In support the standouts are Alain Cuny's darkly brooding but tormented Frollo and Jean Tissler's menacing but subtle Louis XI, though Robert Hirsch Phillippe Clay are good and true to their characters respectively. Djali is very cute as well. Maurice Sarfati is an okay if undistinguished Jehan. In conclusion, a respectable film adaptation of a literary classic but not a great or definitive one. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Okay it goes by the book... But...

[northhallpalmers · 5/10 · 11 November 2005]

Depending on how you look at it this is either the best "Hunchback" or the worst; for my money Lon Chaney will always be the Quasimodo for me but before I discount this version too much, I'll review its good points.

1) It does remain faithful to Hugo's novel; 2) We get to see Quasimodo in color.

Now the bad points:

1) Quinn acts as though he'd rather be anywhere than making this movie; 2) The dubbing is terrible in some spots; 3) Quasimodo doesn't appear to be hunchbacked; 4) Esmeralda is more sex pot than innocent 16 year old; 5) The musical score leave a lot to be desired.

You've got to wonder about Quinn's patience in the make-up chair. His incarnation of Quasimodo isn't really that ugly and does not even come close to the description given by Hugo in his novel. In fact, Lon Chaney and Anthony Hopkins are the only actors that came close to Hugo's description. I kinda thought Quinn's incarnation of Quasimodo resembled a punch drunk boxer --- his Quasimodo just appeared dumb. Beyond Quasimodo and Esmeralda the other characters just never developed.

This movie could have been good but everyone from the director to the producers to the actors dropped the ball.

Watch this one if it comes on TV but save your money for the Laughton, Chaney or Hopkins version.

Here's how I rank the versions of the "Hunchback"

1. Chaney (The Master!) 2. Hopkins (Make-up job superb - just like Hugo described him!) 3. Laughton (Brilliant acting job - most powerful flogging scene.) 4. Quinn (It's in color.) 5. Patinkin (This ranking is not necessarily a knock on Patinkin's Quasimodo, it's a knock on the production & writing which does not follow Hugo's novel at all; the sequence of events is all out of order.) 6. Clarke (A BBC Turkey. Shot on video tape with a lower than low budget. I got the feeling I was watching some drama students put on a play their friend recorded.)

I Didn't Like It

[chiznat7-1 · 17 April 2006]

And I'll tell you why. It's not because of the dubbing (it's a foreign film and once you accept that, you can look past it). It's not because of the budget (it was 1956). It's because the film was horribly miscast & had a horrible script. If their intention was to be faithful, then they left out a lot of crucial parts and really messed up Esmeralda's character. For a tragic story, this movie is way too colorful. The ironic thing is that some of the previous and subsequent film versions, that sugar coated this story, look darker. Anthony Quinn; a good actor, so what happened? Why does Quasimodo look nothing like how he is described in the book? He played Quasimodo like a mutant ape man, who's hardly deformed, and not even hunched over, nor does he have a hump. Well he does have a hump (if one could call it that). But the fact of the matter is, he still looks like Anthony Quinn. Chaney, Laughton, Hopkins, & Patinkin were all unrecognizable. There was also no big dramatic reveal of him in Quasimodo costume. Gina Lollibrigida; I thought Esmeralda was supposed to be a 16 year old virgin French girl, that was kidnapped, and raised by gypsies? In this film, she looks like a 36 year old tavern wench. She over acts, and some of the dancing sequences are embarrassingly bad. They're long, her singing voice is almost of a baritone quality, she sings too low and out of her range, and, for a short moment, she stops dancing, laughs at the crowd, and then goes back to dancing. What the f*** was that? Another sequence that really irritated me (and wasn't even in the book) was when she first spots Quasimodo (not afraid of his features mind you, but later in the bell tower she is?) points out to the crowd and says, "Look! Look at his ugly face?" In order to crown him king of fools. Alain Cuny; Now, Victor Hugo had a knack for writing really great villains. In the novel Frollo was such a beautifully written, multi-facet character. Alain Cuny ALWAYS has the same expressionless look on his face, and not once do we ever get the scene where Frollo pours his heart out to Esmeralda in the dungeon, that scene (which is in the book) defines Frollo's character and makes the viewer able to understand and sympathize with him. But again, Cuny ALWAYS has the same stone look on his face. Even Vampira in "Plan 9 from Outer Space" had at least one different expression. No, not Cuny. All he does is just mope around. Derek Jacobi nailed it when he played Frollo, Richard Harris almost got it, and with Sir Cedrick Hardwick, you could tell that occasionally he would be troubled by his conscious, it was in his eyes and in his delivery. This Frollo is more like a grouchy kid in a playground who doesn't want to talk to any of the other kids. And what's worse, they changed his character to an Alchemist and nothing more. And even then, what is an Alchemist doing inside Notre-Dame? If he's not serving the church in anyway, why is he there? When the character is changed to a judge, at least it is a suitable and cautious change. When it's priest, it's faithful. But what is he in this version? And why does Frollo spread his arms out, and "let" Quasimodo through him over the cathedral? The actor playing Gringoire contributes a lot of embarrassing moments by injecting a lot of unneeded, and inappropriate, slapstick humor and over acting. The actor playing Clopin; doesn't display any kind of leadership skills. He's such a scrawny looking thing that one wonders, how did he become a leader of cutthroats. I always imagined Clopin to be a little more tough and intimidating looking. It's as if they cast Paul from the "Wonder Years" to play the king of thieves. The actor playing Phoebus was too sympathetic and not so much a "player" or "womanizer" as he was in the novel, or the 1939 & 82 versions. Now for the direction: The big scenes, such as the flogging, the trial, the rescue from the gallows, and the storming of the cathedral, were all executed very poorly. The more action oriented scenes were very slow paced and did not have any sort of dramatic music resulting in some very non-rousing sequences. In every film version, including the silent one, you either want to cry or feel very sorry for Quasimodo when he is flogged. This is the only version where I could not express any kind of emotion. And I've seen them all, even the bad ones. Not once do you ever feel sorry for Quasimodo in this film. The only scene that even comes close is when he hits his head on "Big Marie" after he's scared Esmeralda (who wasn't scared of him earlier in the film). Why didn't they use dialog from the book like so many other versions? The ending is the only thing in this film's defense. But... Even the ending was poorly executed. If you ever read the book, you either want to burst into tears or just kill yourself. Here, for some strange reason, you don't feel anything, and Esmeralda's death happens a little too quick and you become unaffected by her demise. And even then, they changed the way how she died and eliminated a very important character, as well as eliminating any mention of Esmeralda's real background. Should you avoid this at all costs? To me, this film did not "feel" like "The Hunchback of Notre-Dame" (aka "Notre-Dame De Paris"). But it should be viewed at least once, to see how bad it is.

Well-done adaptation

[minamurray · 7/10 · 20 September 2011]

First color version of Victor Hugo's novel is indeed colorful, well-done historical spectacle, with Gina Lollobrigida as mature, pure, red-dressed Esmeralda - it is indeed easy to see the men fall for her - and Anthony Quinn as sympathetic Quasimodo. However, it is Alan Cuny who steals the show as hissable but tortured Frollo. He is very good, as well as too handsome in the role of prematurely aged, balding man. Unfortunately scripts cuts away the important scene where Frollo goes to the Esmeralda's death-cell, confesses his love, shows the marks of self-punishment - which he made when Esmeralda was tortured - and tries to drag the girl to safety. One of the highlights of the book - and they cut it! Still, an underrated movie.

Dead Ringer

[writers_reign · 7/10 · 5 October 2012]

I've been trying to see this movie for years just on the strength of a screenplay by Jacques Prevert and Jean Aurenche and it did no harm that the director was Jean Delannoy. The cast I can take or leave though I've got a lot of time for Jean Tissier in the comparatively minor role of the King. People who care about French cinema are acutely aware that this film was made in 1956 when the new wavelet was hovering in the wings. Petulant schoolboy Truffaut had already trashed Aurenche, Delannoy and a gang of other French film makers he wasn't fit to clap a slate for, and semi-amateur Godard was dreaming of his first anti- cinematic movie which turned out to be Brainless. This is exactly the kind of workmanlike, professional piece of craftsmanship they were trying to overthrow, not quite top-drawer but even bottom-drawer Delannoy-Aurenche-Prevert is light years better than Truffaut and Godard on the best day they ever had. No one is going to accuse Gina Lollabrigida of committing the crime of actually acting but if you need a pretty face to play a sensual gypsy girl she was as good as any, as for Quasimodo it could just as well have been Edward Everett Horton beneath all that Max Factor and the make up would be the role. All in all I'm glad I waited.

Good Aspects to a Classic Tale, But a Bit Flat

[Reviews_of_the_Dead · 6/10 · 3 December 2019]

This is another version of this story that I hadn't seen yet and decided since I saw all of the films that I needed to for my horror movie challenge, I would finally give this a viewing. Much like the others I've seen, this one does some slight variations on this tale to make it a bit different for sure. The synopsis is the timeless tale of the seductive gypsy Esmeralda (Gina Lollobrigida) and the tortured hunchback Quasimodo (Anthony Quinn).

We start this showing us a Greek word carved into the wall at the cathedral of Notre Dame. The narrator states to us that the writer of the novel Victor Hugo saw this word and came up with the idea for this story. It then shifts back to 1482, when this happened.

It starts inside of a building where a play is supposed to be happening. The writer of the play is Pierre Gringoire (Robert Hirsch). He is trying to get everyone to calm down, but no one will listen to him. They instead go outside to participate in the festival of fools. They are then looking for their king.

Watching over this Claude Frollo (Alain Cuny) and he's displeased. He lives in Notre Dame and has been working with Quasimodo to help him fit more in society. With him currently is his younger brother, who's asking for money to participate in the festivities, Jehan (Maurice Sarfati). We also get to meet the beautiful gypsy Esmeralda as she is dancing and with her goat. The leader of these people who're poor is Clopin Trouillefou (Philippe Clay). Also watching everything is the bell ringer of Notre Dame, the hunchbacked Quasimodo. He is then crowned as the king of fools until they get to Claude, who scolds him.

Claude continues to stare at Esmeralda and enlists the aid of Quasimodo to kidnap her. This is thwarted by the head of the guard, Phoebus de Chateaupers (Jean Danet), and his men. Quasimodo is taken into custody and will be publicly punished. Phoebus tries to takes Esmeralda to a place he frequents. She refuses to go in, but she's interested in him.

After Quasimodo is whipped, he asks for water. No one will bring him any until Esmeralda arrives. She gives him some and he's grateful. We also see her save Gringoire from being hung among the thieves and poor. She has to take him as a husband in order to do so. We see that it is definitely more of a plutonic relationship though. Regardless though, she does have a good heart, but she's not the smartest, being in love with Phoebus.

All the while, Claude is entranced with Esmeralda. Much to his displeasure, she shows interest in the engaged Phoebus. He can't take it anymore and stabs him with her knife. She is arrested as the owners of the house don't see Claude. She is then put on trial for witchcraft and tortured into a confession. Quasimodo is able to save her while she claims sanctuary in Notre Dame. Louis XI (Jean Tissier) won't stand idly by though and looks for a way to execute this witch before a revolt happens.

As I kind of lead this review off with, this one does do some things that are a little bit different from some of the other versions, which I admit that some work while others didn't. I still feel bad for Quasimodo here. He's such a tragic character that is treated poorly due to his deformities from birth. He even ruins his own hearing for the love of ringing the bells. This does become problematic and I'll dive more into that when I go over the acting.

We get an interesting take here that Louis XI along with Aloyse de Gondelaurier (Valetine Tessier) visit Claude. I'm assuming that he's supposed to be a man of God as he lives in Notre Dame. He's much darker here and is actually practicing alchemy. This is kind of an interesting take though, as he's one of the accusers of Esmeralda for her to be doing witchcraft. I do think that this slightly hurts the film as I think it's better to have him being a man of God that goes after her to show the duality of humanity.

This one also diminishes the role of Clopin. We learn of his position and he of course leads the charge later in the movie, but other that he is reduced to an ongoing joke asking for charity. I think it works better as well if you have him showing that he has pull and the numbers of the lower class at his back.

I don't mean to just breakdown the film, but I also had an issue with the relationship between Esmeralda and Quasimodo. She is afraid of him as he almost kidnaps her. She then shows him compassion with giving him water, but when he saves her from execution, she wakes up and completely terrified of him again. I just think that was a bit overplayed. I'm fine with her being a little bit spooked, but fleeing in terror is too much for their interactions.

I'll move this to the pacing of this movie next, which I thought was just fine. It has a run time of 104 minutes, but I don't think we get a lot of filler that hurts the pacing. We get the introductions to the major players and really get an idea of their character. This novel has a lot of information from what I've gathered seeing all these different versions so they need to be able to convey as much as they can. I do think that some the changes here does hurt the overall feel of the film, but I will say, the ending to this is probably the most bleak of all the versions and I dug that.

That will finally move me to the acting. I thought that Lollobrigida was good casting here. She is quite attractive, she has an exotic look, but she also brings a hint of dull to the role. She knows that the world around her can be dangerous and uses what she has to her advantage. On the other side, Quinn was disappointing unfortunately. I've seen him in other things and I like him. The problem I have is that Quasimodo is supposed to be deaf, but at times he can hear things and others he can't. He also stands upright, probably without thinking as he's a big guy. I hate to say this, but he's probably the worst portrayal I've seen of this character. Danet and Cuny are both interesting in that they're opposite in their personalities, but showing similar feels of toxic masculinity. Both work due to the reaction they got out of me. I don't really like what they did with Clay or Hirsch in this film, but I will say the rest of the cast rounded out the movie for what was needed.

This will then take me to the effects of the film. There's not really a lot to be honest. The make-up of Quasimodo was fine. I like that he really can't look out of his one eye and his face looks deformed as it should. The costumes of the characters and the sets all look faithful to the time period so that's a plus. I would say that the film is shot just fine, recreating some the more famous shots of previous versions which is a good touch.

Now with that said, this is probably my least favorite of the adaptations of Hugo's book I've sent thus far. We do get the general story here which works, but there are a lot of changes that hurt the story here for me. I do think that the pacing is good and the bleak ending was something I really liked. I think most of the acting is good, but I was really disappointed in Quinn's performance. There's not a lot in the way of effects, but Quasimodo's look and it does feel like the time period. The soundtrack for this one really didn't stand out to me, but it didn't take me out of it either. It fit for what was needed. I would say that this version probably isn't horror and focuses more on the drama, but since I've reviewed the others I might as well here. I found this to just be slightly above average and would recommend checking out other versions that are much better.

5.5/10

I had a hunch this one wouldn't be as good.

[BA_Harrison · 7/10 · 24 May 2023]

This French, full colour, Cinemascope version of the Victor Hugo classic novel stars Anthony Quinn as Quasimodo and Gina Lollobrigida as Esmeralda. Quinn is fine as the hunchback who rescues the gypsy girl after she is sentenced to hanging for witchcraft, but he cannot hold a candle to Charles Laughton in the 1939 version: Quinn's make-up isn't as memorable and he stands too upright for my liking. Lolobrigida is gorgeous and it's easy to see how she might drive Frollo crazy with desire, but her glamourous look, complete with perfect red lipstick throughout, doesn't feel very authentic.

It's a lavish production, with impressive sets and a cast of hundreds, and kudos must go to the makers for sticking to Hugo's original downbeat ending; but for sheer entertainment value, Laughton's film is the superior adaptation.

6.5/10, rounded up to 7 for having the guts to go dark at the end.

And now the actual novel....

[theowinthrop · 8/10 · 31 August 2006]

No, it is not as great as the 1939 version. There was some spark in the 1939 version that captivates the audience to this day. It is sadly missing here - not that this film is dull. Far from it. The French have a habit (a good one) of producing movies based on their literary classics that generally show the actual stories quite well. But that means the spirit of the story has to be kept. Victor Hugo was a brilliant 19th Century novelist. Although "Les Miserables" has a strong coterie of fans as his best novel, and it is panoramic in scope, most critics feel his tragedy (yes tragedy) of "Notre Dame De Paris" is his finest novel.

He wrote it in 1832, and (reputedly) used up a whole bottle of ink writing it - so that he felt it should be called "What's Inside A Bottle Of Ink". Fortunately he changed his mind. It is a splendid historic view of Paris in the year 1470. It is a Paris ruled by a brilliant tyrant, who does not mind using torture to accomplish his ends. It is a Paris where the bulk of the population is poor, is uneducated, is bigoted, and is superstitious. It is a Paris dominated, when not by King Louis XI, by the Christian Church (today the Roman Catholic Church, but this is some forty seven years before Martin Luther comes on the scene, so there is no Protestantism - except possibly for the Hussites in Bohemia).

This film version adheres to the novel far more than the 1939 version did. Frollo is as villainous as ever, but his intellectual pursuits are shown. Opposed to spreading learning, he privately is an alchemist and student of science. He does use his position as brother of the archbishop to manipulate and influence, so the central issues of his interest in Esmeralda, and the conflict with his celibacy, are still there. But he also is an isolated figure here that was not really the case in the 1939 version. Frollo's power is due to his brother. He knows if the archbishop dies, so does Claude's power.

I mentioned how in the 1939 film, Harry Davenport's Louis was a lovable codger - hardly the real "Spider King". Jean Tissier's Louis is far closet to the mark - without a trace of emotion he plays cat and mouse with a political prisoner to get the advice on a clerical question. The question, brought to him by a wounded (not killed - he was only wounded) Captain Phoebus about saving Esmeralda from the church trial (and probable execution) that Frollo has manipulated her into is not what Louis feels (even he were inclined) that he should get involved in. He has enough problems keeping his state in tact from that cousin of his Charles the Bold of Burgundy, to want to get involved in a church controversy. So, he visits his old adviser (now in a cage for fouling up an important mission) and pretending to show concern gets the desired affirmation about his hand's off opinion without promising anything. That's the real Louis XI we know and respect! Gina Lolabrigida is closer to the sultry Esmeralda than Maureen O'Hara was, but her performance is not as strong. Still the gypsy victim is a reactor character, her strongest point of action being pursing Phoebus (who would really just wish to sleep with her - not marry her). She barely comprehends the behavior of Frollo, and why he is so infatuated with her. And she only gradually understands the affectionate nature (and true love) of Anthony Quinn's Quasimodo. Quinn is not as made up as Laughton was, but he is not handsome here. He is deformed, and at a great disadvantage against the other suitors.

The title of the novel in French emphasizes the cathedral itself. Hugo knows what was vigorous and alive in 1470 Europe and France that survived - the spirit in it's art. The cathedral becomes part of the players of the plot. This is true in all the versions, but especially here. Not only when Quasimodo saves Esmeralda temporarily by carrying her off to the towers, or when he uses the molten iron for the bells to pour on the mob. But also at the end, when he avenges the woman he loves.

SPOILER COMING UP: Frollo, in the novel and this film, does kill Esmerelda - he arranges to have her hanged in the Cathedral (thus actually revealing his hypocrisy about Catholicism - he does not care that he is defiling a holy place by such an act). Quasimodo is in an agony when he sees the dead body of his beloved taken away, and Frollo dismisses him curtly. But Frollo is looking intently at the dead girl, and obviously relishing it. Without a moment's thought, Quinn, as Quasimodo, pushes Frollo off the tower. Now in the novel, symbolically, the falling Frollo has a slim chance of regaining the tower if he grabs a ledge and holds on. He nearly does, but it proves too slippery, so he falls to his death. The building rejects saving him - he's not worth it.

Not as good as the 1939 version, but still worth watching as it is closer to the original novel. Try to get a look at it some time.

Designated for theatres

[blumdeluxe · 6/10 · 21 May 2018]

"Notre-Dame de Paris" tells the story of Esmeralda, a beautiful Roma woman, whose beauty seduces countless men in the city of Paris. When a judge, out of jealousy, stabs the leader of the armed guards because Esmeralda falls in love with the man, she is sentenced to death and hides in the great cathedral under the protection of Quasimodo, who lives next to the bell and suffers from a disformed body.

The longer I watched the movie, the more I got the feeling that this is a piece of literature that is nearly designated to be played on a stage instead of being forced into a movie. You find many classical elements of a theatre play, even the set design sometimes reminds of one. Otherwise this is of course a very famous piece of literature that delievers all the ups and downs you would expect, which makes for a decent plot. The end in this case wasn't explained very good, it is rather unclear why Quasimodo should stop listening to Esmeralda completely, even when she states that the men only want to save her. But otherwise there's not much to criticize here.

All in all this is a classic adaption of a famous novel. I can imagine that in its time, it was a huge effort to film this, nowadays you're not really sitting on the edge of your chair but it still is a well-produced and well-played adaption of Hugo's script.

I couldn't even finish it

[HotToastyRag · 2/10 · 18 May 2018]

I rented the Anthony Quinn version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame with an open mind. I knew I wouldn't like it as much as the Charles Laughton version, but I had no idea I'd wind up fast forwarding it until I couldn't take it anymore. I didn't even finish the movie.

First of all, despite the title, Anthony Quinn is hardly in the movie. It should have been called Esmerelda, since Gina Lollobrigida took first billing and an enormous amount of screen time. Secondly, this version of the story doesn't really make sense. Gina starts off being afraid of Tony, thinking he's trying to rape her-even though that's not at all what he tries to do-and immediately after her frightening encounter with a strange man in a dark alley, she flirts with Jean Danet, another strange man who clearly is after her body. Tony only tried to lift her up; Jean hoists her up on his horse and rides off to an inn and pays for a bedroom! Then, when Tony gets punished for attempted kidnapping, she inexplicably gives him water during his torture scene-and when he says, "Thank you, you're kind," she inexplicably flees the scene because he's too repulsive to look at. Then-no, I'm not done-after the famous "Sanctuary!" scene, Gina screams at the sight of him and is actively mean.

The third problem was the casting. It just doesn't work to cast a good-looking man as Quasimodo. The audience is always aware of what he looks like underneath the makeup. Tony is a very large man, and he isn't given a proportionally large enough hump on his back; he easily stands up straight. In the Charles Laughton version, he's very small and hunched over-hence the title-and lopes around practically on all fours. Now, the final problem: the acting. You must know by now how much I love Anthony Quinn, but nobody in this movie was any good. The supporting cast sounded like they were dubbed by people at a cold reading, Gina's accent was very strong and difficult to understand, and Tony seemed mentally as well as physically impaired. Quasimodo isn't supposed to mentally slow, so it doesn't make any sense that Tony constantly bursts out laughing in inappropriate situations and acts like he's been hit in the head too many times. Please save yourselves and stick to Charles Laughton.

Spectacular but somewhat impersonal

[JohnHowardReid · 8/10 · 21 August 2009]

Because director Jean Delannoy is not highly regarded by the new wave of French critics, very few of his wonderful movies are available on DVD. One exception is his 1956 version of Victor Hugo's "Hunchback of Notre Dame" which is actually available on two DVD labels. True, screenwriters Jacques Prevert and Jean Aurenche have made some odd changes to the novel. One I approve (minimizing Phoebus' role – he's a dull character anyway) but the other is puzzling: Frollo acts like a priest but is no longer a priest in this version. Instead he seems to be a sort of caretaker or janitor at Notre Dame where he is free to carry out his alchemy experiments. Thus the force of the drama is weakened considerably. So-so acting by Gina Lollobrigida (at least she looks great), Anthony Quinn, Jean Danet and Robert Hirsch in other main roles doesn't help. In fact, the only really impressive performance is Jean Tissier's Louis XI (a role which has been cut to the bone). Never mind, the spectacle, the action, costumes and sets carry the night anyway. A technical note: Although widely advertised as a vehicle for CinemaScope, the movie was not photographed in that process at all. No way could Michel Kelber have achieved such glorious effects and noirish panoramas with Bausch & Lomb's rinky-dink lenses. Instead the film was actually photographed in Franscope with lenses manufactured by Professor Ernst Abbe. The producers dared Fox to sue them for appropriating the title of Fox's widely advertised but vastly inferior process. Fox, of course, did not take up the challenge. The last thing chief executive Zanuck wanted was another humiliating court case (after the "You Lucky People" affair) in which Abbe would make mince-meat of both Darryl and other Fox executives who had wasted $6 million buying and "perfecting" a process that was actually in the public domain.

Saved by the bell, and Gina

[tomsview · 7/10 · 24 January 2023]

It's almost as though the makers of this film had never seen the 1939 version with that awesome performance by Charles Laughton as Quasimodo. Or maybe they had and knew they couldn't match it and bailed, a bit like a contestant on "Fear Factor" who won't eat the bugs.

The approach to Quasimodo by Anthony Quinn is very different, we see him early, between bell sessions, strolling around the town square eating an apple. There is no build up of tension to his head being thrust through the hole during the Festival of Fools, which gave Laughton's first appearance such shock value (actually the way Quasimodo was first introduced in Hugo's novel).

Anthony toned down the whole look by about half. More like he just had a rough night and wears his hump like a small designer haversack under his tunic.

The big entrance in this film is by Gina Lollobrigida as Esmeralda. She bursts onto the set in a fiery red dress. This is a full-on performance by "La Lollo" exotically tanned and slim-waisted, topped off with dark, curly hair and dangling gold earrings. This is the version where Esmeralda saves "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" because without her this film would be hard to sit through.

The story is basically how all the males, good and bad, are drawn to Esmeralda. This includes Claude Frollo, Quasimodo's guardian, whose job description is a bit vague, but who has the run of Notre Dame. His conflicted feelings towards Esmeralda set in motion the key events.

Good score by Georges Auric with a stirring opening theme, but I can't get over how stagy this film seems. They built the sets inside and out and then overlit them. There is little sense of depth or of medieval grunge. Smoke would have helped; the 1939 version is a masterpiece of mood and atmosphere, this one is stark.

However it finished stronger than it started. The last 20 minutes make up for a lot and the last scene as Quasimodo climbs into the vault to be with Esmeralda is powerful; it's the only one of the six versions I've seen that used Hugo's ending.

But the saving grace of the film is Gina. Esmeralda was perfect for her. What a creative force she was on and off the screen. She was a talented sculptor. An art student before movies, she made more than 60 sculptures during her lifetime. Some were based on her film roles including a beautiful one of Esmeralda dancing with Djali the goat. Google it, be gobsmacked.

It has one thing in its favor...

[dac87 · 25 July 2004]

This version of Victor Hugo's TRAGIC tale of the poor deaf bell and deformed bell ringer's love for a kind and virginal gypsy is brought to life yet again. This adaptation suffers from poor acting and bad dubbing while keeping painfully faithful to the book. Now, don't get me wrong, I wish MORE adaptations of Notre Dame de Paris were closer to the book... but it's a shame a shabby film like this is the only one that even touches the book... Gina Lollabrigida (sp?) tries her darndest to capture the allure of the little dancing gypsy girl; she fails utterly... not saying she isn't sexy, but the allurement of Esmerelda is her innocence and youth (she was 16). Gina is far from being either innocent or 16; her whole performance cried "trollip". Antony Quinn (the retarded acting hunchback) is put on the back burner as Gina struts her stuff the whole movie. The guy who played the poet also contributed to the down fall of this movie. This film also has its own way of destroying my favorite scenes in all the other films. My favorite scene of all time is the rescue of Esmerelda from the gallows. In this version, there is no dramatic music, or near death escape, nor a dramatic swing from the bell tower. Esmerelda wasn't even at the gallows... she is knelling before the cathedral while the hunchback slides down a rope, clumsily swoops her up and carried her inside.

SPOILER! Now the one area that this film succeeds is the ending... In the novel, Esmerelda is captured and hanged as the hunchback watches from the bell tower... Well, in this version she is shot, but the guards take her body to the gallows anyway. I think the fact that this film used the original ending as opposed to a happy ending was a clever idea and it is the only thing that saves it in my opinion.