The original film The Hunchback of Notre Dame was one of the saddest and most dramatic films ever. Now, Victor Hugo's original vision is put with color from disney, and it is still dramatic and sad, but it amazingly works into the Dinsey family fold, even if it is erotic, killing and weird. Great fun in voices from Thomas Hulce, Demi Moore, kevin Kline, Tonyt Jay and Jason Alexander as a gargoyle. One of the better animated films to come around in the 90's. A+
349 Reviews
Just short of greatness
MissSimonetta21 April 2014
It's not Hugo, but the Disney version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) is a wonderful film in its own right. Save for some awkward 1990s CG in the background every now and then, the animation is glorious and the colors are deep and rich like a medieval tapestry. The musical score and numbers are among Disney's most underrated. The characters are all memorable, from the soulful Quasimodo to the kind but tough Esmeralda to the evil Frollo, one of the greatest and most unsung of all Disney villains.
Were it not for one factor, this film would be a masterpiece and that is the juvenile humor which creeps into this overall somber and dark movie. The gargoyles are the most obnoxious comic relief possible, and their anachronistic, cartoony nature does not gel with this story of oppression and sin. It's obvious the executives were frightened by the film's darkness, fearful that there wasn't enough kiddie appeal, so they forced this creative mistake upon the filmmakers.
It's a shame, but overall, this is still a fine picture.
Were it not for one factor, this film would be a masterpiece and that is the juvenile humor which creeps into this overall somber and dark movie. The gargoyles are the most obnoxious comic relief possible, and their anachronistic, cartoony nature does not gel with this story of oppression and sin. It's obvious the executives were frightened by the film's darkness, fearful that there wasn't enough kiddie appeal, so they forced this creative mistake upon the filmmakers.
It's a shame, but overall, this is still a fine picture.
Gotta Break the Chains...
Xstal7 October 2020
As enchanting a tale as any told and with plenty to relate to in this modern shallow world built on wealth and looks sadly. The message is clear: be who you are, accept people for what they are, embrace diversity, treat others as you would expect to be treated and above, all revel in the world around you while rejecting prejudice and inequality - break those chains. You really will be so much better off as a result.
Disney's Miracle of a Movie
gpadillo4 October 2004
A risky wedding of wholesome classic animation, to adult and often dark-themed material. The risk paid off and the result is one of the greatest achievements of Disney Studios.
The animation here is first rate and the entire thing is shot like a live-action film with some incredible long shots, great theatrical panning and even at one point, during Quasimodo's song "Out There" a realistic camera flare (I did a double take the first time I saw it!) Hunchback is filled with all sorts of great "tricks" like this. Lighting effects here are nothing short of magnificent often subtle they sometimes change in an instant dramatically altering the mood of the piece. Frodo's demonic song "Hellfire" is perhaps one the most sinister and frightening moments to emerge from Disney and the animators let loose.
The prologue to the movie alone is a minor masterpiece and, like Beauty and the Beast, marvelously prepares us for the whirlwind of a story to take place.
The complaints about the singing and dancing gargoyles Victor, Hugo and Laverne, are simply wrongheaded. I read the Hugo classic too, and know they're not in there. What the complainants fail to realize is these gargoyles live only in Quasimodo's imagination. He invented these companions to ease an otherwise tortured, lonely, friendless life. The culmination of all of this becomes obvious in the spectacular song "A guy like you" which finishes with pigeons flying and hearts and banners and ribbons and Quasimodo being celebrated and then BAM immediately upon the conclusion of the final notes, the room becomes the same dark, dank, splintering tower filled with relics, junk and heartbreak. It's one of the movie's most shattering effects.
While deserved praise goes to the animators and crew, the voice talent here is, in my opinion, Disney's very best. Tom Hulce goes to the very soul of Quasimodo and gives a performance that is as poignant and shattering as anything he has done (Hulce also happened to be the best Hamlet I've ever seen.) Certain lines ("I am a monster, you know") will ring in my ear forever. Hulce has a beautiful voice and renders "Out there" with such abandon and vigor it makes my hair stand on end. In the quiet "Heaven's light" (which sequences into a stunning shot of the bells frantically ringing the opening theme), Hulce brings a fragility to such lines as "no face as hideous as my face, was ever meant for Heaven's light" that only a heart of stone would not be moved. Switching from pathos to rage, Hulce lets us feel the hidden rage and danger that this character also possesses. It is a truly remarkable performance.
Demi Moore, Kevin Kline, Tony Jay, Paul Kandel and the rest of the cast all sound at the top of their game creating wonderful and vivid characters.
Alan Menkin and Stephen Schwartz get to the heart of the matter with score and songs a sound that are as integral a part of the telling of this story as the animation and voices.
Hunchback is a miracle of a movie!
The animation here is first rate and the entire thing is shot like a live-action film with some incredible long shots, great theatrical panning and even at one point, during Quasimodo's song "Out There" a realistic camera flare (I did a double take the first time I saw it!) Hunchback is filled with all sorts of great "tricks" like this. Lighting effects here are nothing short of magnificent often subtle they sometimes change in an instant dramatically altering the mood of the piece. Frodo's demonic song "Hellfire" is perhaps one the most sinister and frightening moments to emerge from Disney and the animators let loose.
The prologue to the movie alone is a minor masterpiece and, like Beauty and the Beast, marvelously prepares us for the whirlwind of a story to take place.
The complaints about the singing and dancing gargoyles Victor, Hugo and Laverne, are simply wrongheaded. I read the Hugo classic too, and know they're not in there. What the complainants fail to realize is these gargoyles live only in Quasimodo's imagination. He invented these companions to ease an otherwise tortured, lonely, friendless life. The culmination of all of this becomes obvious in the spectacular song "A guy like you" which finishes with pigeons flying and hearts and banners and ribbons and Quasimodo being celebrated and then BAM immediately upon the conclusion of the final notes, the room becomes the same dark, dank, splintering tower filled with relics, junk and heartbreak. It's one of the movie's most shattering effects.
While deserved praise goes to the animators and crew, the voice talent here is, in my opinion, Disney's very best. Tom Hulce goes to the very soul of Quasimodo and gives a performance that is as poignant and shattering as anything he has done (Hulce also happened to be the best Hamlet I've ever seen.) Certain lines ("I am a monster, you know") will ring in my ear forever. Hulce has a beautiful voice and renders "Out there" with such abandon and vigor it makes my hair stand on end. In the quiet "Heaven's light" (which sequences into a stunning shot of the bells frantically ringing the opening theme), Hulce brings a fragility to such lines as "no face as hideous as my face, was ever meant for Heaven's light" that only a heart of stone would not be moved. Switching from pathos to rage, Hulce lets us feel the hidden rage and danger that this character also possesses. It is a truly remarkable performance.
Demi Moore, Kevin Kline, Tony Jay, Paul Kandel and the rest of the cast all sound at the top of their game creating wonderful and vivid characters.
Alan Menkin and Stephen Schwartz get to the heart of the matter with score and songs a sound that are as integral a part of the telling of this story as the animation and voices.
Hunchback is a miracle of a movie!
One of the best Disney-animated films of the '90s...
moonspinner5515 January 2006
Although not a kid-pleaser like "The Little Mermaid", Disney's rendering of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" is in every way its equal. The Victor Hugo classic story about Quasimodo, disfigured outcast in medieval Paris who becomes a hero, surprisingly lends itself well to an animated re-enactment with songs. The drawings are handsome and active, very flashy, and the direction is tight if a bit frantic (were they afraid a slower pace would turn children off?). The production is beautiful, compensating I think for the lack of jokes (the gargoyle sidekicks not withstanding) and one really memorable song. The music is still quite good, and the celebrity voices (de rigeur these days) are expressive. The editing is a bit choppy, turning the proceedings into a cartoon hyperbole, but this is a captivating story and good, solid entertainment. *** from ****
"I thought we all were the children of God."
classicsoncall24 July 2018
Warning: Spoilers
One obviously has to overlook Disney's lack of conformity to the Victor Hugo novel in the retelling of this tale about the Hunchback of Notre Dame. But the basics are there, put in animated form to make it more appealing to a younger viewing audience. I guess I would question whether this would have been a suitable subject for a Disney project but it appears to work for the most part. The principal message of course is to not judge a person based on appearances but for their inherent humanity and principled character. Unlike a lot of viewers on this board, I didn't mind the introduction of the gargoyle characters as they added an element of humor and whimsy to the story. What would a Disney animated feature be without it? Of the theatrical versions of the Hunchback, I'd cite the 1939 film with Charles Laughton and Maureen O'Hara as the best adaptation, although the 1923 silent film with Lon Chaney does have it's merits. In the animated version here, one doesn't experience the everyday squalor of Parisian city life that forms the backdrop of Quasimodo's quest for dignity, and how he found solace in the ringing of the church bells. But then again, younger viewers probably aren't ready for that kind of a message, and the one they get with this film might be considered a good stepping stone to experience the earlier dramatic versions.
Let the bells ring out for Paris.
Pjtaylor-96-13804429 December 2020
For sure one of Disney's darker efforts (the hero's mother is murdered on screen in its opening moments), 'The Hunchback Of Notre Dame (1996)' tells the tale of a deformed man forced to live among the bells of Notre Dame by a devout yet merciless judge who manipulates him into believing he is a monster who must remain locked away for his own good. Of course, our hero has a heart of gold and soon finds himself acquainted with a persecuted Roma woman who gives him his first taste of real kindness. The movie deals with difficult themes of disability, discrimination, persecution, racism and genocide. The film's baddie is a real dastardly piece of work; he's legitimately threatening and his actions are some of the most despicable of all of Disney's villains. His aim is to wipe out the entire Roma population of Paris, a desire which is deepened when he finds himself smitten by a dancer (the same woman I referred to earlier) and decides he must either 'have' her or burn her at the stake. The flick is generally more serious and somber than the stuff its studio is typically associated with. That isn't a bad thing, though. The movie is engaging, affecting and sometimes surprising. It's also entertaining right the way through. It isn't consistently downbeat, either. Though its songs aren't all that memorable, they work well enough in the moment and help maintain the narrative's dark atmosphere. It's worth mentioning that the picture does repeatedly - exclusively, even - refer to its Roma characters with a pejorative that I won't repeat here (it's, sadly, still in common use to this day). However, it doesn't feel malicious and the use of this slur is probably period accurate. I can still understand how someone would have an issue with it, though; racial slurs shouldn't be appearing in anything, let alone a Disney movie. Despite this issue, the affair is ultimately a compelling and well-achieved adaptation of its source novel. It's enjoyable and has real stakes to it. It also has a strong underlying message. 7/10
Disney grows up, and it is good
Jenny-8315 January 1999
Going into the theater to see this movie, my friend and I (who are "cynical" teenage movie critics) honestly expected to be disappointed, especially after the relatively blah Pocahontas. When the movie was over 90 min. later, we both ran frantically to go buy the CD and read the book (which, actually, was rather different than the movie, but hey.).
I am 17 years old; I grew up watching The Little Mermaid and Aladdin. When Disney released this movie, which dealt with extremely heavy subject matter in an extremely tasteful manner, I jumped for joy. During the entire movie, I was amazed and spellbound. The music was also fantastic, by the way, as was the cinematography (although those crowd scenes begin to look really fake after a while). That scene where Quasimodo holds Esmerelda up in front of the rose window and yells, "Sanctuary!" still gives me chills.
This is not a movie for children in any way, shape or form. I think the only problem with Hunchback is the fact that Disney refused to accept that this is a serious, relatively adult motion picture and would not make any animated movie, no matter how serious, without obnoxiously cute little critters (i.e., the gargoyles) bouncing around to entertain the kiddies, or huge marketing campaigns at McDonald's, etc. As some others have written on here, it's pretty obvious this movie isn't for kiddies from its subject matter.
But anyone over 13 who's willing to think as well as be entertained when watching a Disney movie would probably love Hunchback.
I am 17 years old; I grew up watching The Little Mermaid and Aladdin. When Disney released this movie, which dealt with extremely heavy subject matter in an extremely tasteful manner, I jumped for joy. During the entire movie, I was amazed and spellbound. The music was also fantastic, by the way, as was the cinematography (although those crowd scenes begin to look really fake after a while). That scene where Quasimodo holds Esmerelda up in front of the rose window and yells, "Sanctuary!" still gives me chills.
This is not a movie for children in any way, shape or form. I think the only problem with Hunchback is the fact that Disney refused to accept that this is a serious, relatively adult motion picture and would not make any animated movie, no matter how serious, without obnoxiously cute little critters (i.e., the gargoyles) bouncing around to entertain the kiddies, or huge marketing campaigns at McDonald's, etc. As some others have written on here, it's pretty obvious this movie isn't for kiddies from its subject matter.
But anyone over 13 who's willing to think as well as be entertained when watching a Disney movie would probably love Hunchback.
Beautiful animation and story
SnoopyStyle29 September 2013
In 15th century Paris, Quasimodo the hunchback of Notre Dame falls for gypsy girl Esmeralda who was the only one to show him kindness. Claude Frollo the Minister of Justice has kept Quasimodo hidden in the belltower. The cruel Frollo set his soldiers to destroy the world of the gypsy and it's up to Quasimodo and the handsome Phoebus to come to the rescue.
This Disney animation looks great. The story is a beautiful poignant story of sacrifice and love. The only thing missing is a really good iconic song. That would have added at least a point. The characters are really compelling.
This Disney animation looks great. The story is a beautiful poignant story of sacrifice and love. The only thing missing is a really good iconic song. That would have added at least a point. The characters are really compelling.
Deliciously Dark, and Touchingly Religious
pelicans_and_such30 October 2004
I was so impressed by this movie. The animation is gorgeous and a lot of the subject matter profound. Many critics have complained about the talking gargoyles messing up the movie and taking it further away from Hugo's original novel, but the only problem I have with them is their song (A Guy Like You), which attempts "Be Our Guest" and "Under the Sea" status, but really does lack the melody. Other than that, they fit right in with Hugo, who told in his novel that Quasimodo would sit for hours holding solitary converse with the statues. Of course, this was all in his mind, but hello, so are the gargoyles in the movie. No one else ever sees them talking or moving (with the exception of Djali), and they are animated to give Quasimodo some friends, just as he did on his own in the book. Of course, there are many other parts of the movie that are WAY different from the book, but not as many people complain about them, so I won't mention them. The main reason I love this movie is the villain, Frollo, played to perfection by Tony Jay. His sinister atmosphere and lust for Esmerelda are elements of the like we have never seen in any other Disney movie, prior to or after Hunchback. The song "Hellfire" is the crown jewel of the movie, and makes the entire thing worth watching. I was so surprised by the graphic lyrics and animation of this scene, and could do nothing but yell "THIS IS Disney!!!!!!!!!!" But it was a good surprise, not a bad one. Frollo is decidedly the deepest, and most evil of all Disney villains, and is definitely my favorite.
The music in this movie is also the best that Disney has ever produced. Though the songs are not as catchy as those found in other memorable Disney movies, they are nonetheless the most powerful. In this movie, we find large-scale choral music in Latin, huge orchestral works, religious themes, and Broadway/Classical style arrangements that put most of the other Disney movies to shame. It truly is magnificent.
I definitely recommend this movie to all audiences, and I give it a 10/10. This is the Disney movie that deserved an Oscar nomination more than any other, and it is a shame that it has been so underplayed and all but disowned by Disney since its release. SEE THIS MOVIE.
The music in this movie is also the best that Disney has ever produced. Though the songs are not as catchy as those found in other memorable Disney movies, they are nonetheless the most powerful. In this movie, we find large-scale choral music in Latin, huge orchestral works, religious themes, and Broadway/Classical style arrangements that put most of the other Disney movies to shame. It truly is magnificent.
I definitely recommend this movie to all audiences, and I give it a 10/10. This is the Disney movie that deserved an Oscar nomination more than any other, and it is a shame that it has been so underplayed and all but disowned by Disney since its release. SEE THIS MOVIE.
A Messy Masterpiece
PyroSikTh22 June 2021
The Hunchback of Notre Dame has me really conflicted in how I feel about it. It's a dark and mature movie with a compelling story and a number of themes effortlessly interwoven, while also being remarkably progressive for its time. It tackles ideas on sex, racism, and religion like no Disney movie before or since. The animation is gorgeous with sweeping cityscapes and defined colouring creating uncountable amounts of frame-worthy shots. It has flourishes of a truly great stage musical, but I'm not a fan of that stage musical style so many of the musical numbers fell completely flat for me, even though the classical/choral instrumentation really appeals to me. And as progressive and mature as its story and themes may be, there's the problematic ending that undermines much of it. Not to mention the jarring tonal shifts between the dark and serious melodrama and the kid-friendly slapstick and witty one-liners, and the rushed pacing/editing that prevents the movie from transitioning properly and breathing between each scene. It's an underrated classic and a messy misstep all at once; a flawed masterpiece. I give The Hunchback of Notre Dame a hugely conflicted 7/10.
A pleasant surprise
Smells_Like_Cheese19 January 2004
The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a surprise of a pleasant Disney film, in my opinion this is the last real great (hand drawn)animated Disney movie. I was eleven when this film was release and I saw it in the theater, I was just absolutely in love with this film. Still to this day I like watching it. It has such a beautiful story, a bit different from the original Hunchback of Notre Dame book, but they had to make it family friendly. Not to mention that the soundtrack to The Hunchback of Notre Dame is just so beautiful and awesome, the best since The Lion King. This is just such a charming and magical film, I can't see someone not falling in love with it.
Quasimodo is a disfigured man who was raised by the evil and cruel Frodo who only keeps him to save himself from eternal damnation. One day Quasimodo goes down to the big fair and bumps into a beautiful gypsy, Esmeralda, who doesn't judge him by his looks but by his charming and kind personality. But when she saves him from the crowd's cruelty, she is a fugitive on the run now, but Quasimodo helps her and falls in love with her. But a new soldier, Phoebus, has also fallen for her and she has for him too, but they all must stick together in order to survive the cruel flames of Notre Dame.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame is just such a great film to watch, it's a great family movie for the afternoon. It's such a touching story, it could even bring a few tears to your eyes, and some fun comedy to uplif the story. I loved the old man who is constantly in a trap of some sort and his line every time he gets free "I'm free! I'm free!", then he gets back in the same situation "Dangit!", that was funny. The cast was perfect and seemed to have a lot of fun with their characters. I highly recommend this film, it's a great Disney treasure.
9/10
Quasimodo is a disfigured man who was raised by the evil and cruel Frodo who only keeps him to save himself from eternal damnation. One day Quasimodo goes down to the big fair and bumps into a beautiful gypsy, Esmeralda, who doesn't judge him by his looks but by his charming and kind personality. But when she saves him from the crowd's cruelty, she is a fugitive on the run now, but Quasimodo helps her and falls in love with her. But a new soldier, Phoebus, has also fallen for her and she has for him too, but they all must stick together in order to survive the cruel flames of Notre Dame.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame is just such a great film to watch, it's a great family movie for the afternoon. It's such a touching story, it could even bring a few tears to your eyes, and some fun comedy to uplif the story. I loved the old man who is constantly in a trap of some sort and his line every time he gets free "I'm free! I'm free!", then he gets back in the same situation "Dangit!", that was funny. The cast was perfect and seemed to have a lot of fun with their characters. I highly recommend this film, it's a great Disney treasure.
9/10
Fantastic soundtrack, rough drawing style
loryanaviteamedici13 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I love the Hunchback of Notre Dame. At least I love it when I haven't seen it in a while. The soundtrack to this movie - composed by the brilliant Alan Menken - is magnificent. While I personally favour the "background" pieces over the solo-songs of the actual good guys ('Out There', 'God Help the Outcast' & 'A guy like you'), these songs nevertheless are musically great. So when listening to the score, first and foremost Minister Frollos song 'Hellfire' and the title song 'Bells of Notre Dame', I LOVE this movie.
Watching it sadly is almost always a slight disappointment to me, when I see how unfittingly rough the animation is drawn, compared to the epicene of the score. The background imagery is still beautiful, but the characters are drawn much simpler as in other Disney movies (for example compared to The Jungle Book) which I personally don't like as much.
The plot is good and sends a strong message, but only one scene - the Feast of Fools - really gets to me emotionally. The harshest realisation I came to as an adult is that Frollo, while being truly despicable, is actually telling Quasimodo the truth: He wouldn't be accepted in our world. Despite this cold and brutal truth, the movie doesn't get me involved as other Disney movies do (I still cry every time I watch 'Inside Out') and the animation isn't as breathtaking as usual.
Overall, the plot and animation would get this movie a 4-5 star rating, but the score (I really love Alan Menken for that) and this unveiled realistic statement of how cruel our world actually is against those, who are different, pull it up to 7 stars for me. I still enjoy watching it a lot, though I have to say that I prefer just having 'the Bells of Notre Dame' playing on repeat.
Watching it sadly is almost always a slight disappointment to me, when I see how unfittingly rough the animation is drawn, compared to the epicene of the score. The background imagery is still beautiful, but the characters are drawn much simpler as in other Disney movies (for example compared to The Jungle Book) which I personally don't like as much.
The plot is good and sends a strong message, but only one scene - the Feast of Fools - really gets to me emotionally. The harshest realisation I came to as an adult is that Frollo, while being truly despicable, is actually telling Quasimodo the truth: He wouldn't be accepted in our world. Despite this cold and brutal truth, the movie doesn't get me involved as other Disney movies do (I still cry every time I watch 'Inside Out') and the animation isn't as breathtaking as usual.
Overall, the plot and animation would get this movie a 4-5 star rating, but the score (I really love Alan Menken for that) and this unveiled realistic statement of how cruel our world actually is against those, who are different, pull it up to 7 stars for me. I still enjoy watching it a lot, though I have to say that I prefer just having 'the Bells of Notre Dame' playing on repeat.
If you love the book... this travesty is a penance
DrMMGilchrist3 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Watching this bowdlerisation of one of my favourite novels is probably the nearest I will ever get to a mediaeval-style penance such as wearing a hairshirt. I'm giving the film 4 stars only for the quality of the animation: the cityscapes and the cathedral are beautifully realised. There are a few (very few) moments of expressionistic power: the 'Hellfire' sequence in particular reminded me of Musorgskii's 'Night on the Bald Mountain' in 'Fantasia', and suggests the story's real tragic, passionate heart, but... It's *not* my beloved 'Notre Dame de Paris'.
What it is is a sanitised, smug, 'feel-good' fable with a happy ending, trying to hitch a ride on a masterpiece by stealing a few character-names and concepts from the novel. It is heavily indebted to previous Hollywood versions which were also far from faithful. It follows the 1923 and 1939 films (which were prevented from depicting the clergy 'disrespectfully' by the NAMPI 'Thirteen Points' and the Hays Code respectively) in turning the Frollo brothers into a 'good' Archdeacon and an 'evil' secular judge, with the latter having Claude's tortured passion for Esmeralda. (Never mind the fact that without a conflict over his priestly vows of celibacy, this plot line is weakened drastically.) 'Judge' Frollo here even looks like Cedric Hardwicke from the 1939 film, down to his chaperon hat, although here he has at least been named Claude. (In the 1923 and 1939 versions, the sexually repressed 'evil' brother was Jehan – hilarious if you know the book!) This film also follows Hugo's stage version, 'La Esmeralda' (1835) and the 1923 film in de-sleazing Phbus and making him the romantic lead. (SPOILERS AHOY) The death of Quasimodo's young mother, hitting her head on the steps, in the prologue seems to me to borrow from Pâquette's death near the end of the novel. In turn, I wonder if the scene of the burning of the miller's cottage inspired Roland Emmerich's 'The Patriot' (2000)?
While these changes are understandable in trying to make a film for children from a very adult novel (and I appreciate that I'm *not* the target audience), I wonder *why* they did it? What was the point? Surely it would have made more sense to write an *entirely original* story to express the desired themes, than grafting it parasitically on to a classic? For one thing, it turns the novel on its head by making a smarmy, shallow playboy into a dashing romantic lead, and the proto-Dostoevskian, intellectually brilliant but sexually and emotionally tormented young tragic hero/anti-hero into a sneering villain old enough to be his father! One of the most infuriating scenes is the adoption of Quasimodo. In the book, he is placed in the cathedral as a foundling, aged about 4. Claude Frollo, already a priest at 19, adopts him out of genuine compassion, because he himself has just been orphaned and left to care for his baby brother. This poignant scene is replaced with a horrific crime. Claude is also depicted as a cruel 'parent', keeping Quasimodo imprisoned in the cathedral and instilling an inferiority complex: in the book, he teaches the boy basic literacy (despite his physical and learning disabilities), and devises sign-language for him when he loses his hearing. The film perpetrates a grotesque distortion of character and tone.
Worse, this film has 'poisoned the well' for at least some younger viewers when they later approach the book, judging by some online book reviews. For every one that has embraced entering Hugo's stunning but heartbreaking universe, there are several who complain that the novel "isn't like the Disney film"; that "none of the characters are sympathetic" or "likeable" (really?! – I read it in my mid-teens and fell in love with the Archdeacon of Josas at first read!), that there's too much about alchemy or architecture or philosophy or human sexuality My sole consolation is imagining Dom Claude anathematising the entire Disney Corporation in full solemn ritual, with bell, book and candle. (I rather think he'd enjoy doing it, too!) I now have this nightmare of Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Goofy starring as 'The Krazy Karamazov Brothers': it no longer seems impossible...
What it is is a sanitised, smug, 'feel-good' fable with a happy ending, trying to hitch a ride on a masterpiece by stealing a few character-names and concepts from the novel. It is heavily indebted to previous Hollywood versions which were also far from faithful. It follows the 1923 and 1939 films (which were prevented from depicting the clergy 'disrespectfully' by the NAMPI 'Thirteen Points' and the Hays Code respectively) in turning the Frollo brothers into a 'good' Archdeacon and an 'evil' secular judge, with the latter having Claude's tortured passion for Esmeralda. (Never mind the fact that without a conflict over his priestly vows of celibacy, this plot line is weakened drastically.) 'Judge' Frollo here even looks like Cedric Hardwicke from the 1939 film, down to his chaperon hat, although here he has at least been named Claude. (In the 1923 and 1939 versions, the sexually repressed 'evil' brother was Jehan – hilarious if you know the book!) This film also follows Hugo's stage version, 'La Esmeralda' (1835) and the 1923 film in de-sleazing Phbus and making him the romantic lead. (SPOILERS AHOY) The death of Quasimodo's young mother, hitting her head on the steps, in the prologue seems to me to borrow from Pâquette's death near the end of the novel. In turn, I wonder if the scene of the burning of the miller's cottage inspired Roland Emmerich's 'The Patriot' (2000)?
While these changes are understandable in trying to make a film for children from a very adult novel (and I appreciate that I'm *not* the target audience), I wonder *why* they did it? What was the point? Surely it would have made more sense to write an *entirely original* story to express the desired themes, than grafting it parasitically on to a classic? For one thing, it turns the novel on its head by making a smarmy, shallow playboy into a dashing romantic lead, and the proto-Dostoevskian, intellectually brilliant but sexually and emotionally tormented young tragic hero/anti-hero into a sneering villain old enough to be his father! One of the most infuriating scenes is the adoption of Quasimodo. In the book, he is placed in the cathedral as a foundling, aged about 4. Claude Frollo, already a priest at 19, adopts him out of genuine compassion, because he himself has just been orphaned and left to care for his baby brother. This poignant scene is replaced with a horrific crime. Claude is also depicted as a cruel 'parent', keeping Quasimodo imprisoned in the cathedral and instilling an inferiority complex: in the book, he teaches the boy basic literacy (despite his physical and learning disabilities), and devises sign-language for him when he loses his hearing. The film perpetrates a grotesque distortion of character and tone.
Worse, this film has 'poisoned the well' for at least some younger viewers when they later approach the book, judging by some online book reviews. For every one that has embraced entering Hugo's stunning but heartbreaking universe, there are several who complain that the novel "isn't like the Disney film"; that "none of the characters are sympathetic" or "likeable" (really?! – I read it in my mid-teens and fell in love with the Archdeacon of Josas at first read!), that there's too much about alchemy or architecture or philosophy or human sexuality My sole consolation is imagining Dom Claude anathematising the entire Disney Corporation in full solemn ritual, with bell, book and candle. (I rather think he'd enjoy doing it, too!) I now have this nightmare of Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Goofy starring as 'The Krazy Karamazov Brothers': it no longer seems impossible...
Best Disney film ever made?
cassbah25 September 2004
Well... No. Not quite. It's not the 'conventional classic' that everyone loves and adores (see: Aladdin, The Lion King) and will show their children and their children's children. But that's just it. How anybody can deny that this is a fantastic film is beyond me.
Okay, it's in no way true to the story. But who cares? This is a Disney FILM. It's hardly setting out to be a serious piece of literature-to-film.
It's just... breathtaking. Not just the animation (which is some of the most accomplished from Disney to date, whilst we're on the subject), but the characterisation and pace of story. Frollo is, arguably, the most evil Disney villain ever committed to celluloid. Here, Disney touches on dark themes never before explored in their animated feature lengths; the main one being lust. The scene with 'Hellfire' is truly chilling.
Quasimodo is a brilliant Disney hero. His alienation is easy to relate to, and yet he's still alien enough for one to feel so sorry for him. He's just so tragic. His unrequited love for Esmerelda as she runs off with someone cooler and better looking is something we can all relate to. I quite like how the ending is part conventional for Disney and part not. Yes, the pretty heroine gets the knight in shining armour, but at the same time the real leading man doesn't have to be paired off with a beautiful leading girl in order to end up happy.
The voices are really talented- the notable standout for me being Kevin Kleine as Phebus, and Esmerelda is arguably one of the best things Demi Moore has ever done. I also adore, against most people's opinions, the gargoyles. Yes, they're a bit OTT, but that's what Disney sidekicks are all about, and they provide essential comedy balance for the darkness of the film.
The Hunchback Of The Notre Dame may not be the most authentic film storyline-wise, but it is dark, touching, scary, poignant, funny, chilling, moving (it never fails to leave me in floods of tears) and is one of the few Disney films that can stand alone from Disney as a wonderful piece of cinematography in it's own right.
Okay, it's in no way true to the story. But who cares? This is a Disney FILM. It's hardly setting out to be a serious piece of literature-to-film.
It's just... breathtaking. Not just the animation (which is some of the most accomplished from Disney to date, whilst we're on the subject), but the characterisation and pace of story. Frollo is, arguably, the most evil Disney villain ever committed to celluloid. Here, Disney touches on dark themes never before explored in their animated feature lengths; the main one being lust. The scene with 'Hellfire' is truly chilling.
Quasimodo is a brilliant Disney hero. His alienation is easy to relate to, and yet he's still alien enough for one to feel so sorry for him. He's just so tragic. His unrequited love for Esmerelda as she runs off with someone cooler and better looking is something we can all relate to. I quite like how the ending is part conventional for Disney and part not. Yes, the pretty heroine gets the knight in shining armour, but at the same time the real leading man doesn't have to be paired off with a beautiful leading girl in order to end up happy.
The voices are really talented- the notable standout for me being Kevin Kleine as Phebus, and Esmerelda is arguably one of the best things Demi Moore has ever done. I also adore, against most people's opinions, the gargoyles. Yes, they're a bit OTT, but that's what Disney sidekicks are all about, and they provide essential comedy balance for the darkness of the film.
The Hunchback Of The Notre Dame may not be the most authentic film storyline-wise, but it is dark, touching, scary, poignant, funny, chilling, moving (it never fails to leave me in floods of tears) and is one of the few Disney films that can stand alone from Disney as a wonderful piece of cinematography in it's own right.
What makes a monster, and what makes a man
TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews11 March 2008
I have not read the book by Victor Hugo, but I do understand that, as the other adaptations of theirs, this has been "Disney-fied", gotten something of a heavy dose of sugar injected, to direct its aim toward children. In spite of this, it's actually quite watchable for those of us who aren't, anymore. The tone has a lot of maturity, and the themes are universal. The plot is very good, well-written and it develops nicely throughout the entire feature. Colors are used effectively. At the same time, the visuals are rather naturalistic and realistic, all the way. The dialog is well-done. The comedy works, and a lot of it is enjoyable to the older audiences, as well. The DVD holds a cute special feature or two, and none of them are bad. The game isn't the best of these Disney DVD games. Casting surprised me, Kline and Moore both suit their parts and as with Gibson in Pocahontas, and much more so, Williams in Aladdin, first-mentioned actor gets some of his recognizable traits transferred to his animated alter ego. Alexander is a lot more tolerable than he was in The Return of Jafar, in fact, he's downright funny, herein. The music isn't bad at all. This has moments of creativity and energy like that of Aladdin, which is still my favorite Disney animated musical. The dramatic portions are effective, and the 3D elements are masterfully done. I recommend this to any fan of Disney's feature-length musical cartoons, young and old alike. 7/10
Hunchback shines through its darkest moments
mcshermansmithy4 April 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Hunchback of Notre Dame is one of the best Disney animated movies ever. It's also one of the darkest. And that's why love it.
Best parts: The animation is fantastic. Everything feels grand, huge, and epic. The characters are great, especially the villain, Frollo. He's very intimidating and very complex. The darkest parts, especially Hellfire, make this film unique and very special. I forgot to mention that the choir is AWESOME! It makes everything epic and dark like something from Lord of the Rings.
Parts that don't work: The comedy in this movie is hit and miss, and the gargoyles are annoying as heck.
If you're a fan of the original Victor Hugo novel, you're probably not going to like it. But I didn't really mind the changes they made, especially the ending where Quasimodo and Esmeralda lives. It's dark, epic, and very unique for a Disney film. I highly recommend Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame.
Best parts: The animation is fantastic. Everything feels grand, huge, and epic. The characters are great, especially the villain, Frollo. He's very intimidating and very complex. The darkest parts, especially Hellfire, make this film unique and very special. I forgot to mention that the choir is AWESOME! It makes everything epic and dark like something from Lord of the Rings.
Parts that don't work: The comedy in this movie is hit and miss, and the gargoyles are annoying as heck.
If you're a fan of the original Victor Hugo novel, you're probably not going to like it. But I didn't really mind the changes they made, especially the ending where Quasimodo and Esmeralda lives. It's dark, epic, and very unique for a Disney film. I highly recommend Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame.
Disney takes us to Notre Dame and its gorgeous cathedral
Atreyu_II10 September 2007
The 34th animated Disney "classic" is a little better that the earlier "Pocahontas", but still far from being one of the great Disney classics.
Although this movie has some great designs and sceneries, in many ways most of the designs haven't got the same creativity or brilliance from the older classics. However, the era when Disney started to go downhill was just beginning, because this was followed by much worst Disney movies. But that's another story...
The gargoyles are exaggerated characters. The idea of talking gargoyles is a little too much for me, just like Grandmother Willow (the talking tree from "Pocahontas"). But this isn't the only negative thing about this movie. I dislike some of the humor used on it. Not that there's something wrong with its humor, it's just not very convincing, that's all.
I also think that this movie is too dark. This isn't the darkest Disney movie ever, but it is very close to that. Nevertheless, this movie is quite creepy in some parts.
The good side of this movie is, for example, the majestic Cathedral of Notre Dame, which is extremely well drawn, causing the same impact as seeing it in reality. The sound of the bells singing is formidable. Some of the songs from this movie are catchy (others not so). Some characters are great, such as Clopin (the puppeteer), Quasimodo, Phoebus (a funny and brave character) and the beautiful gypsy Esmeralda.
Also, the moments with Quasimodo and Esmeralda are usually good. The various sceneries and angles of view of both Paris and the Cathedral of Notre Dame are amazing and stunning (including some views of the cathedral from the clouds), which makes them one of the best things about this movie.
The evil Minister Claude Frollo is, of course, cruel and hateable, very hateable in fact, but a good villain. Tony Jay makes an even better voice job with Frollo than with Monsieur D'Arque.
Although this movie has some great designs and sceneries, in many ways most of the designs haven't got the same creativity or brilliance from the older classics. However, the era when Disney started to go downhill was just beginning, because this was followed by much worst Disney movies. But that's another story...
The gargoyles are exaggerated characters. The idea of talking gargoyles is a little too much for me, just like Grandmother Willow (the talking tree from "Pocahontas"). But this isn't the only negative thing about this movie. I dislike some of the humor used on it. Not that there's something wrong with its humor, it's just not very convincing, that's all.
I also think that this movie is too dark. This isn't the darkest Disney movie ever, but it is very close to that. Nevertheless, this movie is quite creepy in some parts.
The good side of this movie is, for example, the majestic Cathedral of Notre Dame, which is extremely well drawn, causing the same impact as seeing it in reality. The sound of the bells singing is formidable. Some of the songs from this movie are catchy (others not so). Some characters are great, such as Clopin (the puppeteer), Quasimodo, Phoebus (a funny and brave character) and the beautiful gypsy Esmeralda.
Also, the moments with Quasimodo and Esmeralda are usually good. The various sceneries and angles of view of both Paris and the Cathedral of Notre Dame are amazing and stunning (including some views of the cathedral from the clouds), which makes them one of the best things about this movie.
The evil Minister Claude Frollo is, of course, cruel and hateable, very hateable in fact, but a good villain. Tony Jay makes an even better voice job with Frollo than with Monsieur D'Arque.
My Favorite Disney Film
Gazzer-222 March 2002
Disney adapts the famous novel by Victor Hugo into their 34th animated feature, telling the story of the lonely, deformed Quasimodo, the secluded bellringer of Notre Dame, who lives by himself in Notre Dame's church towers, with only three stone gargoyles named Victor, Hugo (get it?), and Laverne for company. At the gargoyles' playful urging, Quasi sneaks away from the church one day to attend the Festival Of Fools, and makes his first real human friend in the beautiful gypsy girl, Esmeralda. But soon, after Quasimodo is ridiculed by the crowd for his appearance, he and Esmeralda find themselves in trouble with Quasimodo's wicked stepfather, Frollo, the ruler of Notre Dame. With help from his three gargoyle friends, as well as the kind soldier Captain Phoebus (who has fallen in love with Esmeralda), it's up to Quasimodo to save Esmeralda and the town of Notre Dame itself from Frollo's evil control....
If you've been reading some of my other reviews, then you know by now that I'm a big fan of Disney animated features: "Snow White," "Fantasia," "Tarzan," and "Atlantis," to name but a few (and I do plan on reviewing more Disney films in the future). But now that I've just gotten reacquainted with Disney's 1996 film, "The Hunchback Of Notre Dame," finally released on DVD, I know now beyond the shadow of a doubt that this beautiful animated film is indeed my favorite Disney feature of them all (okay, so "Fantasia" arguably remains the best *animated* of the lot, but it certainly didn't have an actual plot). I don't think I've ever cried so much during a Disney movie. "The Hunchback Of Notre Dame" is, quite simply, a glorious triumph for Walt Disney Productions.
Granted, the Disney team have "Disney-ized" Hugo's original novel, such as turning it into a musical, including sidekick stone gargoyles that come to life, as well as the obligatory happy ending, but no matter. This is a truly wonderful animated film through and through that will touch you right down to your very soul. It's very well-written, surprisingly dark at times, gorgeously animated, very funny AND very dramatic at turns, with a first-rate voice cast including Tom Hulce, Demi Moore, Kevin Kline, Tony Jay & Jason Alexander, and beautiful, memorable songs by Alan Menken & Stephen Schwartz. And I promise you, there won't be a dry eye in the house at the film's end, mark my words.
HOW, in Heaven's name, did the Academy overlook "Hunchback Of Notre Dame" altogether in 1997? Not even any nominations for the music! Absolutely outrageous. Perhaps with the five previous Disney films in a row being honored by the Academy, from "The Little Mermaid" through "Pocahontas," the Academy simply wanted to take a break from nominating Disney films, not realizing how truly brilliant "The Hunchback Of Notre Dame" was. How very unfortunate that "Hunchback" had to fall victim to the Academy's ignorance that year.
Still, it takes nothing away from the remarkable achievement that this Disney film is. Against all the odds, the Disney team transformed Victor Hugo's novel into a truly lovely tale for all ages to enjoy. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll enjoy the music, you'll be moved. Step aside, "Beauty And The Beast"---"The Hunchback Of Notre Dame" is the REAL Disney masterpiece from the last few years.
If you've been reading some of my other reviews, then you know by now that I'm a big fan of Disney animated features: "Snow White," "Fantasia," "Tarzan," and "Atlantis," to name but a few (and I do plan on reviewing more Disney films in the future). But now that I've just gotten reacquainted with Disney's 1996 film, "The Hunchback Of Notre Dame," finally released on DVD, I know now beyond the shadow of a doubt that this beautiful animated film is indeed my favorite Disney feature of them all (okay, so "Fantasia" arguably remains the best *animated* of the lot, but it certainly didn't have an actual plot). I don't think I've ever cried so much during a Disney movie. "The Hunchback Of Notre Dame" is, quite simply, a glorious triumph for Walt Disney Productions.
Granted, the Disney team have "Disney-ized" Hugo's original novel, such as turning it into a musical, including sidekick stone gargoyles that come to life, as well as the obligatory happy ending, but no matter. This is a truly wonderful animated film through and through that will touch you right down to your very soul. It's very well-written, surprisingly dark at times, gorgeously animated, very funny AND very dramatic at turns, with a first-rate voice cast including Tom Hulce, Demi Moore, Kevin Kline, Tony Jay & Jason Alexander, and beautiful, memorable songs by Alan Menken & Stephen Schwartz. And I promise you, there won't be a dry eye in the house at the film's end, mark my words.
HOW, in Heaven's name, did the Academy overlook "Hunchback Of Notre Dame" altogether in 1997? Not even any nominations for the music! Absolutely outrageous. Perhaps with the five previous Disney films in a row being honored by the Academy, from "The Little Mermaid" through "Pocahontas," the Academy simply wanted to take a break from nominating Disney films, not realizing how truly brilliant "The Hunchback Of Notre Dame" was. How very unfortunate that "Hunchback" had to fall victim to the Academy's ignorance that year.
Still, it takes nothing away from the remarkable achievement that this Disney film is. Against all the odds, the Disney team transformed Victor Hugo's novel into a truly lovely tale for all ages to enjoy. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll enjoy the music, you'll be moved. Step aside, "Beauty And The Beast"---"The Hunchback Of Notre Dame" is the REAL Disney masterpiece from the last few years.
The message is there, the magic is not
matlefebvre2021 July 2006
It is one of the most spread messages that parents and teachers send to kids: beauty is only skin deep... And so is ugliness.
Disney already used this phrase only 5 years before making "The Hunchback of Notre Dame". It was in "Beauty and the Beast", which was an adaptation of an old French tale. Coincidentally, the directors (Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise) are the same for both movies.
Here, Disney creators stay within the same culture, but they use a more mature and serious title instead: Victor Hugo's "Notre Dame de Paris". And that's where the danger was. How can you take a very serious, mature and dark story and make it suitable for young children? We can say, once we see the final product, that is a success, but it is far from being a masterpiece like "Beauty".
Some very serious themes remain from the original story. The characters (at least those who are portrayed on screen) are the same and they're very well pictured. Quasimodo, who is one of the best animated interpretations of physical ugliness since a very long time, never sends a doubt that he is one of the most gentle men of Paris. Gypsy dancer Esmeralda reveals her hot beauty without sinking into the too-sexy or the scandalous. Courageous captain Phoebus is nice too, as he shows himself as somebody who do the right thing instead of instinctively obeying to the orders.
Evidently, gypsy-hating judge Claude Frollo is here too, but as a much darker and creepier role than portrayed in the book. There isn't a single moment in the movie where Frollo isn't accompanied by darkness, rain, fire, or any other element which portrays evil. Sometimes, he is simply too much dark and terrifying to be cast in what is supposed to be a children's/family movie. In a sense, he recalls me Judge Doom in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit".
Such a movie wouldn't have been released by Disney if there weren't any comic stuff inserted. This time, the mood enhancers are the three gargoyles who accompany Quasimodo in his bell-tower. They mostly succeed in their laugh delivering mission, but they often say ridiculous lines, such as "You're human, with the flesh, and the hair, and the navel lint." and act in ridiculous situations, such as a poker game which is an excuse for a freewheeling love song.
Talking about the songs, they're not astonishing. They're often located in the wrong moments and the soundtrack won't get any Billboard hit. It's a serious downfall after the success of songs belonging to previous movies. In "Little Mermaid", there's "Under the Sea". In "Beauty and the Beast", there's "Be my Guest". In "Aladdin", there's "A Whole New World". In "The Lion King", there are "Circle of Life" and "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" (thanks Elton). In "Pocahontas", there's "Colours of the Winds". In "The Hunchback", there is... That's the point: there's nothing.
Animation is good, but not everywhere. The city of Paris lacks of a magic touch, but Notre Dame is superb. The basilica is drawn on a monumental scale and becomes a divine entity, with the help of some quotes, particularly from Phoebus' part. The Gothic architecture and the windows are a feast for the eyes. Fire effects are also remarkable.
"The Hunchback of the Notre Dame" is not a disaster, but it's a sign that Disney has jumped the shark. That's what happens when you run out of fairy tales or children's books in order to get a storyline. But the message is here and children should have lessons to learn here.
Disney already used this phrase only 5 years before making "The Hunchback of Notre Dame". It was in "Beauty and the Beast", which was an adaptation of an old French tale. Coincidentally, the directors (Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise) are the same for both movies.
Here, Disney creators stay within the same culture, but they use a more mature and serious title instead: Victor Hugo's "Notre Dame de Paris". And that's where the danger was. How can you take a very serious, mature and dark story and make it suitable for young children? We can say, once we see the final product, that is a success, but it is far from being a masterpiece like "Beauty".
Some very serious themes remain from the original story. The characters (at least those who are portrayed on screen) are the same and they're very well pictured. Quasimodo, who is one of the best animated interpretations of physical ugliness since a very long time, never sends a doubt that he is one of the most gentle men of Paris. Gypsy dancer Esmeralda reveals her hot beauty without sinking into the too-sexy or the scandalous. Courageous captain Phoebus is nice too, as he shows himself as somebody who do the right thing instead of instinctively obeying to the orders.
Evidently, gypsy-hating judge Claude Frollo is here too, but as a much darker and creepier role than portrayed in the book. There isn't a single moment in the movie where Frollo isn't accompanied by darkness, rain, fire, or any other element which portrays evil. Sometimes, he is simply too much dark and terrifying to be cast in what is supposed to be a children's/family movie. In a sense, he recalls me Judge Doom in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit".
Such a movie wouldn't have been released by Disney if there weren't any comic stuff inserted. This time, the mood enhancers are the three gargoyles who accompany Quasimodo in his bell-tower. They mostly succeed in their laugh delivering mission, but they often say ridiculous lines, such as "You're human, with the flesh, and the hair, and the navel lint." and act in ridiculous situations, such as a poker game which is an excuse for a freewheeling love song.
Talking about the songs, they're not astonishing. They're often located in the wrong moments and the soundtrack won't get any Billboard hit. It's a serious downfall after the success of songs belonging to previous movies. In "Little Mermaid", there's "Under the Sea". In "Beauty and the Beast", there's "Be my Guest". In "Aladdin", there's "A Whole New World". In "The Lion King", there are "Circle of Life" and "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" (thanks Elton). In "Pocahontas", there's "Colours of the Winds". In "The Hunchback", there is... That's the point: there's nothing.
Animation is good, but not everywhere. The city of Paris lacks of a magic touch, but Notre Dame is superb. The basilica is drawn on a monumental scale and becomes a divine entity, with the help of some quotes, particularly from Phoebus' part. The Gothic architecture and the windows are a feast for the eyes. Fire effects are also remarkable.
"The Hunchback of the Notre Dame" is not a disaster, but it's a sign that Disney has jumped the shark. That's what happens when you run out of fairy tales or children's books in order to get a storyline. But the message is here and children should have lessons to learn here.
Very good music!
marzerjal14 April 2005
I've just read a comment that this movie has a lot of bad songs. I absolutely disagree - there may be some weak parts of script or so, but music is indeed very, very good. Alan Menken made a masterpiece, as usual! The orchestration, score, everything, not to mention good voices of characters. But it is true that maybe this story isn't exactly meant for children, although Disney tried to make it closer to a child's ear and eye. I also think that the animation was really good - much more expressive than some of newer Disney's movies that were made almost entirely by computers. It's a pity that Hunchback wasn't more successful - it certainly deserved it.
Risky Disney!
anna_netzloff3 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Truthfully I never liked this movie when I was little. Re-watching it I still find I don't really care for it. I do however have an appreciation for it though. Disney really went on a limb here and did something different. I have a theory they didn't get the credit they truly deserved from it either, or at least not by most Disney fans I figure.
My childhood memory of this movie isn't much. I remember the hunchback and I remember talking gargoyles. I guess I must have blocked out the rest cause I truly couldn't remember anything else about this movie before re-watching it. I think I see why I did though. lol! I really feel for the most part that this movie would be appreciated by an older audience. That's just how I feel about it now.
I found from seeing it again though that there is a lot of good in this movie. The songs for the most part are good, even really creepy. Frollo's song will always send chills down my spine, as will the character. As for the other characters they were all nicely done. I'm glad I can appreciate this movie a lot more now that I'm older.
I guess I'll call this a family movie, only cause it's under the Disney name though.
My childhood memory of this movie isn't much. I remember the hunchback and I remember talking gargoyles. I guess I must have blocked out the rest cause I truly couldn't remember anything else about this movie before re-watching it. I think I see why I did though. lol! I really feel for the most part that this movie would be appreciated by an older audience. That's just how I feel about it now.
I found from seeing it again though that there is a lot of good in this movie. The songs for the most part are good, even really creepy. Frollo's song will always send chills down my spine, as will the character. As for the other characters they were all nicely done. I'm glad I can appreciate this movie a lot more now that I'm older.
I guess I'll call this a family movie, only cause it's under the Disney name though.
This is a wonderful and unjustly-maligned movie!
TheLittleSongbird17 February 2009
This isn't as good as Beauty and the Beast, but it is miles better than the Black Cauldron and Home on the Range, which are probably the weakest Disney movies I've seen. Stop criticising it, because it is unfaithful to the book. There are some parts of the book, that just wouldn't work, like the character of Clopin, if he was the same as he was in the book he would be too frightening for kids. Don't get me wrong, it is an amazing book, but a very complex one as well. Of course, it is more adult than most Disney movies, but it means it is mature, and I found it a dark, powerful, poignant and really chilling film, if in comparison to other Disney movies is slightly disappointing. The IMDb rating for this movie is far too low, it deserves a 7.0 to be honest. The animation is fantastic, so crisp and smooth. Notre Dame has never looked so magnificent, even in real life. The highlight was Quasimodo saving Esmeralda from getting burnt at the stake, accompanied by a hauntingly-beautiful Dies Irae. The characters are also well done, and so is the theme-driven story, and the themes are very mature and complex. Speaking of the characters, I know all of them had changed, but they were so well-developed, unlike Black Cauldron. Quasimodo was poignantly voiced by Tom Hulce, and his character is possibly the most sensitive character in Disney history. Esmeralda was brilliantly voiced by Demi Moore, who brought a little bit of herself into the role. She is feisty and beautiful. When you look into her eyes, you instantly know how wrong Frollo is about her. I have always loved her hair, but her chief beauty are her eyes, a beautiful colour and filled with such sadness. Frollo is a very complex villain, and the sinister timbre of Tony Jay's voice flawlessly matched that. The sequence in front of the fireplace was a definite highlight and gave me goosebumps, as well as his death scene. He looked evil! Then there is Clopin, a very underrated and relevant character. Paul Kandel voiced him marvellously and his singing was out of this world. Pheobus was the most changed character, but Kevin Kline was really funny here. I liked the gargoyles, they were very funny. However, my only criticism about this movie, is to do with them. I liked their song "Guy Like You" but it was misplaced. It should have been put there 20 minutes earlier, not when Paris is burning down. The songs are on the whole just brilliant, and the score so powerful and emphatic! The magnificent opening is the best beginning to a Disney movie. "Out there" is very heartfelt, and "Topsy Turvey" is great fun. "God help the Outcasts" is hauntingly beautiful. The only song I had a problem with was the song in the Court of Miracles, because I couldn't hear a word they were singing, and I loved "Someday" and "Heaven's Light". Some bits made me laugh, but there were plenty of scenes that made me cry, especially when Quasimodo thinks Esmeralda is dead, and he is seen comforting her body. Really poignant! In conclusion, a brilliant movie, with one of the most poignant endings in an animated film. 9/10, though it was so close to a 10. Bethany Cox
Complex and dark
seethachymiso9 November 2019
Good film, horrible book adaption
zereshk31 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
For some reason, it seems to be impossible for directors to stay true to Victor Hugo's book when making it into a film. I've seen at least 4 adaptations and none of them got the story even halfway right.
This one takes the cake though.
Not only has the story been changed at every turn (a happy ending? seriously?) but all the main characters have been turned into their exact opposite. Esmeralda, a naive and frail young girl, becomes a confident and witty woman. Quasimodo, in the book an antisocial, mean 18 year old (who is also, inconveniently, deaf - no way Disney would keep that little detail) becomes a cuddly stuffed animal who helps little birds learn how to fly. Claude couldn't possibly stay a priest of course. This isn't really unusual, as far as I know all versions before 1956 either made him a judge or left out his obsession with Esmeralda and Disney is almost always a few decades behind morally. But that they left out almost every redeeming character trait he possesses in the book, that he kills Quasimodo's mother and tries to throw Quasi down a well instead of adopting the monstrous child of unknown origin when everyone else thinks it's a demon, that he doesn't even show a hint of the romanticism that overwhelms him in the last third of the book (when he isn't threatening Esmeralda with death and/or rape that is), that instead of his fierce intellect and curiosity it is the lust for power that dominates his actions, this is unforgivable. And of course, perhaps the most absurd move, as much ridiculous as it is typical of Disney, Phoebus, the insensitive, dumb, opportunistic soldier who gets way more attention than he deserves due to his good looks, becomes the knight in shining armor - literally!
That being said, some of the scene were actually very intense and well-crafted. When liquid fire was running out of every hole of the cathedral, when Claude was hunting Quasimodo's mother through snow-covered Paris to a choir singing "Dies Irae", the song "Hellfire", these were the moments when the film, despite all its alterations, came pretty close to the dramatic and dark atmosphere of the book.
All in all I would say this is indeed the best film version of "Notre Dame de Paris" - as the book was originally called, without much focus on the hunchback, who in the book is only the 4th most important character - mainly because the other version are pretty bad.
One last thought: When I first watched the film, my reaction was: Talking gargoyles? Really? But then it occurred to me: The gargoyles aren't actually becoming alive for their friend Quasimodo, Disney in its dark cynicism made the poor, lonely Quasimodo imagine things to cope with his pain. His psyche is wounded by the constant ostracism and the emotional torture at Claude's hands to the point where it desperately makes up friends to gain at least some feeling of being loved. This is so wonderfully twisted. I have to watch the film again to check whether any of the other characters actually interact with the gargoyles and if yes, how much ambiguity there is in these scenes.
This one takes the cake though.
Not only has the story been changed at every turn (a happy ending? seriously?) but all the main characters have been turned into their exact opposite. Esmeralda, a naive and frail young girl, becomes a confident and witty woman. Quasimodo, in the book an antisocial, mean 18 year old (who is also, inconveniently, deaf - no way Disney would keep that little detail) becomes a cuddly stuffed animal who helps little birds learn how to fly. Claude couldn't possibly stay a priest of course. This isn't really unusual, as far as I know all versions before 1956 either made him a judge or left out his obsession with Esmeralda and Disney is almost always a few decades behind morally. But that they left out almost every redeeming character trait he possesses in the book, that he kills Quasimodo's mother and tries to throw Quasi down a well instead of adopting the monstrous child of unknown origin when everyone else thinks it's a demon, that he doesn't even show a hint of the romanticism that overwhelms him in the last third of the book (when he isn't threatening Esmeralda with death and/or rape that is), that instead of his fierce intellect and curiosity it is the lust for power that dominates his actions, this is unforgivable. And of course, perhaps the most absurd move, as much ridiculous as it is typical of Disney, Phoebus, the insensitive, dumb, opportunistic soldier who gets way more attention than he deserves due to his good looks, becomes the knight in shining armor - literally!
That being said, some of the scene were actually very intense and well-crafted. When liquid fire was running out of every hole of the cathedral, when Claude was hunting Quasimodo's mother through snow-covered Paris to a choir singing "Dies Irae", the song "Hellfire", these were the moments when the film, despite all its alterations, came pretty close to the dramatic and dark atmosphere of the book.
All in all I would say this is indeed the best film version of "Notre Dame de Paris" - as the book was originally called, without much focus on the hunchback, who in the book is only the 4th most important character - mainly because the other version are pretty bad.
One last thought: When I first watched the film, my reaction was: Talking gargoyles? Really? But then it occurred to me: The gargoyles aren't actually becoming alive for their friend Quasimodo, Disney in its dark cynicism made the poor, lonely Quasimodo imagine things to cope with his pain. His psyche is wounded by the constant ostracism and the emotional torture at Claude's hands to the point where it desperately makes up friends to gain at least some feeling of being loved. This is so wonderfully twisted. I have to watch the film again to check whether any of the other characters actually interact with the gargoyles and if yes, how much ambiguity there is in these scenes.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
