User reviews

I had been looking forward to watch this film after reading reviews praising the acts of Derek Jacobi and whatnot, but was disappointed. His Frollo seems very detached from Esmeralda, even with his talent, it doesn't connect.

Also, this Esmeralda is laughable. The hair is hilariously 80s and doesn't work. Nothing against the actor.

The one that saves this rating from even being a 6 is Quasimodo. Unfortunately we don't see a lot of him until the last half (sort of like the book), where we almost get to see more development of him but hardly see any from anyone, not even Q with Frollo. The only good scene would be the aftermath of the flogging and Quasimodo talking to Esmeralda in the tower (but only Quasimodo's dialogue, a nice touch being it's mostly lines from the book).

The ending got to me, I will admit. Hopkins does a stellar job. One of the better adaptations, but wouldn't be so quick to recommend. Watch the 1997 version if you're looking for a modern live-action Hunchback.

Hunch

Not the epic that you would expect from a film starring Anthony Hopkins, Derek Jacobi, Nigel Hawthorne, David Suchet and John Gielgud, who do at least play their parts well. However it's just missing a certain "je ne sais quoi" (X Factor).

I have no real frame of reference for the story having never read or seen any other version, not even the Disney one, but like Mr Hugo's other works, it is a good story to be told, which is probably why it has been made and remade so many times, with at least two more versions in the pipeline at this time, according to IMDB.

The leading cast all really shine against a supporting cast that don't have their fantastic experience on stage and screen.

It's a shame that Mr Hopkin's prosthetic is quite poor by today's standards, as his face is so expressive and it gets a bit lost, but you still get his usual high standard nonetheless. Although you'd think he could afford a decent dentist!?

I'd be surprised if the people of Notre Dame ever learned how to tell the time with the bells ringing so constantly and erratically as they do, but I have to say that the set is really something quite impressive too.

It does have that very typical "Made in the 80's" kind of filter and feel to it. I think it would probably be handled very differently and more artistically if the same production was made more recently. Even in the 90's I think we might have seen that certain something that this was missing.

That doesn't take away the fact that it is a relatively good film with a good cast and tells the story well, as far as I know. It's unlikely that it will ever be in anyone's top 100 list, but it's a short and simple watch for any rainy day with a cuppa.

476.15/1000.

The Hunchback Of Notre Dame is one of the best movies of all time. A balance of epic action and character is woven into a piece of great story telling. Every minute works and builds to the next. Perfect from beginning to end and deserves to be set next to Citizen Kane. Tragically it was not done for the big screen and couldn't get an Oscar.

THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1982) turns out be the first time I've watched a filmed adaptation of the Victor Hugo novel. It's just something I've never got around to before now, despite owning both the silent version and the Charles Laughton outing on video. I guess it says something about my tastes in film when I've watched Paul Naschy's HUNCHBACK OF THE MORGUE before this story! As it happens, HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME turns out to be a fairly decent film, although I can't vouch for how faithful it is as I haven't read the novel. Despite being a made-for-TV production, it's eventful and intriguing, mainly worth watching for a superior cast who acquit themselves well with the material.

Anthony Hopkins, in the titular role, plays it for sympathy and it works. He's virtually unrecognisable beneath the heavy and effective makeup, and his hunchback is a tragically maligned character throughout. Lesley-Anne Down is a believable object of lust and affection for most of the cast, and Derek Jacobi has a fine line in playing villainous characters (his turn as Claudius in Branagh's HAMLET was another favourite).

Watch out for minor roles for David Suchet (with hair!), Tim Pigott-Smith, John Gielgud, Nigel Hawthorne and Robert Powell, who's wasted in a minor part. Also watch out for decent production values, with elaborate sets, and assured direction from TV helmsman Michael Tuchner. I wouldn't necessarily call this depiction of the novel definitive - it feels a little slow and stagy in places, a little cold - but it is a solidly entertaining picture.

This was a film that I sought out as I really enjoyed the original version of this story that was done as a silent film. I decided to check out the other versions. What was interesting about this one is that it is made for TV movie back in the early 80's. The synopsis is a disfigured man Quasimodo (Anthony Hopkins) is feared and tormented by the townspeople of Notre Dame, but he has a sensitive nature of which few are aware.

We start this off inside of the church Notre Dame. A hideous baby is found and the nuns believe that there are devils within it. A priest, Dom Claude Frollo (Derek Jacobi) decides to make him his ward and allow him to live in the church. We shift to 15 years later. Frollo is made an archdeacon and he goes around with Philippe (Tim Pigott-Smith). In the city there is a gypsy woman, Esmeralda (Lesley-Anne Down) who is dancing for money and she's being arrested. When Frollo sees her, he lets her off with a warning.

This day is the start of a festival. One of the most important aspects is crowning the king of fools. Pierre Gringoire (Gerry Sundquist) is a poet who wants to put on a play, but the people aren't really interested. They are trying to find the ugliest man and that is solved when Quasimodo shows up. He is crowned and then scolded by Frollo. He tells him to go back to the cathedral. Also during this, Esmeralda is forced to dance again by her brother, Clopin Trouillefou (David Suchet) and she is arrested. Frollo intervenes and takes her to Notre Dame.

It is there he comes on to her and she flees. He sends Quasimodo after her. Phoebus (Robert Powell) shows up and takes the hunchback into custody. Esmeralda immediately falls in love with this man. Phoebus tells her to meet him at a tavern later that night. Pierre stumbles into the kingdom of thieves where they are going to execute him. That is until Esmeralda agrees to marry him instead of his life being taken. It is after though she tells him that she doesn't see him as a lover. She heads off to meet with Phoebus.

Things take a turn when Frollo goes there to kill Phoebus. The crime is blamed on Esmeralda and she is sentenced to death, even though Phoebus survived. Quasimodo does save her from execution, but now she is kept in Notre Dame, Frollo is also inside with them.

Now I will start off stating I debated whether or not to review this film or not. This one toned down the horror quite a bit to focus more on the love story. That is not to say there aren't horrific elements to the film though. It also does bring up some relevant concepts that are still an issue today as well.

The most glaring one is the right of a woman to choose and the idea of toxic masculinity. Esmeralda falls for Phoebus, because he is good looking and he's a prominent member of the city guard. Pierre is overall a good guy, but he tells Esmeralda not to go meet him because he is a womanizer. I don't like that he is forbidding her at first, but it is her decision. He does have the best intentions for her and will treat her right though.

Even more toxic masculinity is Phoebus and Frollo. The former is really a womanizer and just wants to sleep with her. He is committing adultery as well. Frollo is a man of God, but he is in love with the beauty of Esmeralda. The problem here is that he doesn't take no for an answer and he claims she is a witch for causing him to fall in love. This brings up a big issue I have with religion for sure as he can't take any responsibility for his actions.

It is also a shame though that Quasimodo looks the way he does. He really treats her best, outside of trying to kidnap her because he is told to by Frollo. Quasimodo is convicted of a crime against her and when she shows compassion, he does the same. I do have an issue with this film that we don't get as much Quasimodo as I would like. The story is about him, but this one focuses quite a bit more on this love issue between all of the parties I outlined.

Being that this is a television film, I do think it has some pretty good pacing. I never got bored with what was going on, even though it is a story that I already know. The tension of the film is built through the torture of Esmeralda and just the dread all of these men as they push their will on to her. She is just trying to make money and surviving in the only ways that she can. The failing of the courts is something else that adds to that as well. I liked the ending and though it was fitting for the story that we got.

Something I thought was really good for this one was the acting. Hopkins doesn't have a lot of lines, but I can see why he is a master at the craft. He conveyed the character so well and I thought the way he moved and spoke were perfect of a character like this. Jacobi was solid and I love the corruption of religion that happens with him the moment he sees Esmeralda. The interesting thing is that he did do a good deed of taking in Quasimodo. It doesn't excuse him, but we do get that redeeming factor. Suchet was fine as was Sundquist. Down was quite beautiful and I thought her portrayal of Esmeralda was solid. The rest of the cast rounded out the film for what was needed as well.

To the effects of the film, they did go pretty light on them. This one doesn't really need a whole lot to be honest. The look of Quasimodo was good. I thought it was pretty realistic. I do like it was done practical. That comes from the time period, but if done today, it would probably be CGI. The torture scene of Esmeralda did make me cringe so I give credit there. I do think the film was shot well also.

Now with that said, I thought this film was fine. It isn't as good as the other two versions I've seen at this time though. I think some of the aspects of the story that were taken out hurts this one. This one focuses more on the love angle instead of the social commentary of science vs. religion. The acting though is good and the little effects we get are as well. It is paced well also. The soundtrack of the film really didn't stand out and it didn't hurt it either. I did find this version to be enjoyable, just not better than some of the others one. I would actually recommend this if you want one that is a bit lighter on the horror as I do think this one is above average overall.

This glossy US television version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame followed a well worn formula of that era.

Round up as many well known British thespians who prefer theatre and shower them with money to appear.

Get a few veterans who have an Oscar for a little cameo. So that's Sir John Gielgud sorted.

He is not the only knight in this movie, others would get one later. Sir Nigel Hawthorne has a small role. The main parts are reserved for Sir Derek Jacobi as the priest Frollo who is bewitched by gypsy woman Esmeralda (Lesley-Anne Down.)

Quasimodo (Sir Anthony Hopkins) is the disfigured hunchback who is mocked by the people of Notre Dame.

Strangely Quasimodo has a reduced role here. He only appears sporadically in the first half of the movie.

The film steps up the moment Frollo glimpses Esmeralda and is enchanted by her. It drives him to madness and cruelty.

This is certainly a more campy reworking than one that should had been a gothic horror/romance. In that sense it wasted its cast.

Interestingly two fishwives who appear, Pam St Clement and June Brown would later find fame in Eastenders.

With every different version of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" that I have ever seen, I hope again that I will one day see a film that copies the novel exactly. Victor Hugo's novel is a tragedy all the way, and it does NOT have a happy ending, or even a semi-happy one! The only version that is most like "Notre Dame de Paris" is the 1977 film described elsewhere in this site. However, the 1982 version comes closer than the earlier ones, which, because of censorship, could not have an Archbishop feverishly pursuing a heathen gypsy female through the dark streets of Paris, laying aside his priestly vows to lust after her to the death. This dark, Gothic romance cries out for black and white--it just doesn't work in color, and the color here is gorgeous. See the 1939 Laughton version to see what I mean. And speaking of the Laughton version, Anthony Hopkins is obviously copying Charles Laughton's legendary performance, and does it quite well--one great actor's nod to another. Has Anthony Hopkins ever given a bad performance? Or has Derek Jacobi, for that matter? He succeeds in making Dom Claude what I have always considered this character to be--not a villain, but a pathetic, pitiable character torn between his holy vows and his forbidden lust for a beautiful gypsy dancer. Lesley-Ann Down is lovely, to say the least, as Esmeralda, and the supporting cast is solid. David Suchet as Clopin is fine in his own way, but it was a thankless task to try to follow Thomas Mitchell's great, over-the-top turn as the King of the Beggars in the 1939 version. Though this version is not as good as it could have been, it still is one of the best, and well worth your time.

How is it possible that such a brilliant cast could make such a bad adaptation of a classic novel? Anthony Hopkins is not allowed to put any real life into Quasimodo, and Derek Jacobi just barely lets us see into his tortured soul. Lesley-Anne Down is laughable as an actress, although breathtakingly beautiful. The real surprise here is David Suchet, who plays a character utterly unlike any we are used to -- a far cry from Poirot!

Why was I disappointed? The sound is terrible, the cuts between scenes disjointed, the scenery poorly constructed, and the actors are hemmed in by a terrible script. We are not given insight to the relationship between Quasimodo and the Archdeacon, nor between Pierre and Esmerelda. Tim Piggott-Smith has about the best character development, and he is a secondary character at best.

Cameos by such luminaries as John Gielgud and Nigel Hawthorne heightened the disappointment even more. This one is really a stinker and a waste of England's best talent.

This film shows us why derek jacobi is one of the greatest actors living. only he can turn a villian into the most sympathetic character in a film. his claude frollo bristles with lust, simmers with hate and all the while he feels tortured and guilty. still he can't resist his urges. he loves quasimodo but loves his own carnal pursuits more. this is indeed a tragic figure. Hopkins is also outstanding in the role of quasimodo,he is sicere and honest. david suchet and leslie anne-down offer strong support.

This movie version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame is superbly similar to the Hugo novel. Quasimodo looks exactly like it's told in the book, he is almost deaf, and in this movie we see yet another "little Esmeralda", who reminds us of the dancer in the Dieterle version.

I was quite surprised that even Frollo is rather good to Quasimodo - just like in the novel - but when he already at the beginning started to show his passion for Esmeralda, I knew that he is just like he must be. Honestly, I couldn't only hate him because he later seemed to be quite unhappy of being "bewitched" and that Esmeralda refused to answer to his feelings.

I was especially shocked that the film had even the torture scene of Esmeralda. Captain Phoebus, too, was surprisingly similar to the character of the book, and it was good that Gringoire tried to warn Esmeralda about him. It was also really moving to hear Quasimodo talk about his own ugliness.

The only thing I was a little disappointed in was the end; although it doesn't belong to the novel, I had started to hope that Esmeralda could see the truth about Quasimodo.

I found this somewhat laughable given that I was watching on "valentines day" and its not a patch on the version with Charles Laughton. The Bishop is in love with the girl in this one and hes prepared to kill! The judge at the trial is a puff and equally so "superior" its quite laughable. Gielgud is equally vile in his part as are Suchet and Powell in theirs. Leaving only "the boyfriend" and Quasimodo with any morality whatsoever. Sad that in this version every member of the church and the "aristocracy/army" is such an aweful human being. The Bishop (who I assume to be a catholic priest) in love (in his head at least) with a beautiful woman that is supposed to be untouchable. PLEASE watch the Laughton version. Its vastly superior in every way that leaves this one to be completely inferior in script, story telling etc etc

I love the book, and I love the 1939 film which I found beautifully made, memorably performed and very poignant and the Disney film for while it is not a true adaptation the animation and music more than make up for me and Frollo is one of Disney's most interesting characters.

This Hallmark Hall of Fame adaptation is not as good as these two in my view, but it is one of the truer adaptations of the book especially in its depiction of Frollo. Two scenes didn't work for me, the Festival of Fools scene which was in need of much more jollity and the Court of Miracles scene which while well acted and set lacked intensity.

However, two scenes in particular did stand out as very powerful, the angry mob scene which is one of the more vivid depictions of that particular scene of any film based on the classic novel and the ending which killed me emotionally.

This Hunchback of Notre Dame does look gorgeous with excellent photography and sumptuous costumes and settings, though I kind of agree that black and white would have given it a more Gothic tone. The story still maintains its emotional impact, the script is thoughtful and literate and Ken Thorne's music is memorable and never too obtrusive.

The acting is spot on. Lesley-Anne Downe is a breathtakingly beautiful and sensual Esmeralda and David Suchet in a role completely different to his Poirot persona(quite a shock if you ask me) is a grotesque Clopin. Anthony Hopkins is a poignant Quasimodo, but it was Derek Jacobi who nails his tortured and complex character that made the adaptation for me.

In conclusion, very well done. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Can't say enough about this brilliant telling of a classic story. An A+ cast that cannot be topped. A truly most-see TV-movie!