Nonureva Really Surprised!

Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Usamah Harvey The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Fuzzy Wuzzy I purposely gave this film a somewhat lower rating than one might expect or think that it deserves.This was done solely because I don't enjoy a film that focuses in on the likes of grubby, low-life peasants, be they from the 15th Century or from the present.My aversion to bottom-of-the-barrel peasants is directly associated with the fact that I live within "a-hop-skip-and-a-jump" away from Canada's skid-row capital, which is located at the intersection of Main & Hastings streets in Vancouver, BC.I think that if you lived down in these dregs, as well, you'd be pretty damn repulsed and fed-up with the realities of what peasant life is really all about. You certainly wouldn't appreciate seeing it being somewhat glorified in a 100-year-old movie like this one.Anyways - This film's story is pretty depressing with Quasimodo (the hunchback) contemptuously spitting on the peasants and the peasants, in return, spitting back at him. And pretty, little Esmeralda, the sweetest gypsy girl (with a heart of gold), being forced into the middle of things and being spit on from both sides, while all the hot-blooded guys (including hideous Quasimodo) wantonly eyeing her.Yeah. There's plenty of treachery & betrayal & revenge & whatnot thrown into the mix (for good measure). But its too much of a focus on the truly ugly side of human nature. So, this film, in turn, fails to serve as viable entertainment after a while.The Hunchback Of Notre Dame's story is just too mean-spirited to sustain one's interest for very long and, with that, I cannot give this film more than a 4-star rating.

gavin6942 Quasimodo is a deformed (deaf and half-blind) bell-ringer of the famous Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris. Jehan Frollo, the evil brother of Dom Claude Frollo, the saintly archdeacon of Notre Dame, prevails upon him to kidnap the fair Esmeralda, the adopted daughter of Clopin, who is the king of the oppressed beggars of Paris' underworld. The dashing Captain Phoebus rescues her from Quasimodo, while Jehan escapes and leaves him.This is Lon Chaney's breakout performance, and the most familiar version of "Hunchback" (besides the Disney cartoon). It is not a happy tale, with the hunchback being both abused and bitter against mankind. He is a very angry man at times, much more venomous than you would expect.Some of Chaney's acting seems a bit over the top and Vaudevillean. He overemphasizes, his gestures are wild, and the way he rings the bell is more like a chimpanzee than a man. It just further dehumanizes Quasimodo.The version I watched could have been of better quality, and the music was very repetitive, which grew annoying after a while. But, I suppose, if you want to see a piece of horror history and Lon Chaney's work, this is one to see.

DrMMGilchrist Visually, Wallace Worsley's adaptation of 'Notre Dame de Paris' is stunning: the lavish sets are atmospheric; the costumes, while not always historically accurate, are attractive; and the film is lively and well-shot, with (on the whole) an excellent cast. It could have been a superb early Hollywood epic. Unfortunately, the script was maimed by censorship, which set the tone for subsequent US attempts to film Hugo's spectacular novel of 15C Paris. *Some spoilers follow, as I wish to compare the book and the film.*The title itself reflects part of the problem. Despite Victor Hugo's disapproval, since 1832, many popular English-language translations of 'Notre Dame de Paris' have appeared under the 'Hunchback' title, promoting the supporting character of Quasimodo to the leading role. The NAMPI 'Thirteen Points', which prefigured the Hays Code, further fuelled this change of narrative focus. They prohibited the depiction of the clergy in ways that might provoke hostility or loss of respect: a huge obstacle in adapting this novel, which centres upon Claude Frollo, a brilliant young priest who destroys himself and all he loves because he can no longer cope with his vow of celibacy. Other characters were also problematic for the censors: Esméralda's long-lost mother is a penitent former prostitute; the teenaged student Jehan is a drunkard and frequenter of brothels; Phœbus is a rake who takes Esméralda to a sleazy 'house of assignation' and almost succeeds in seducing her – indeed, she plasters herself over him more or less begging him to take her! How could the book be sanitised for filming under NAMPI rules?The script retains Claude Frollo's identity as Archdeacon, but makes him remain the sweet, saintly adoptive father of the deformed foundling Quasimodo. It transfers his passion for Esméralda and his alchemy to his secular brother, Jehan – a spoilt and dissolute undergraduate in the book, but here a middle-aged villain, in league with the king of the underworld, Clopin. Without the psychological conflict over religious vows, the 'thwarted desire' plot loses meaning and intensity. It becomes just another story in which a man ruthlessly pursues a girl who loves someone else. It also wastes the talents of the British actor Nigel de Brulier, whose ascetically handsome features make him one of the best film-Claudes in looks. He could have played Hugo's Claude magnificently, judging by his performance as the prophet Jokanaan, tormented by another provocative teenaged dancer in Alla Nazimova's film of Oscar Wilde's 'Salomé'. Instead, all he has to do is look pious in a cassock. Film-Jehan (Brandon Hurst) is merely a moustache-twirling melodrama villain, or would be, if he had a moustache!The moustache, however, in one of Hugo's more egregious anachronisms, belongs to Phœbus de Châteaupers (Norman Kerry), whom the script cleans up to be a conventional romantic lead (a decision copied by Disney in 1996). Yes, he tries to seduce Esméralda (the delightful Patsy Ruth Miller – young, carefree and charming), but here she resists, and he is won over by her virtue. The film also invents a Cinderella-type scene where she goes to a ball, dressed up as a lady, and captures his heart from his aristocratic fiancée Fleur-de-Lys. And of course, despite the various trials and tribulations, they will be rewarded with a happy ending. Pierre Gringoire's role is minimised to that of occasional comic relief: a pity, as he is great fun when he is on screen. Pâquette/Sister Gudule, Esméralda's mother, makes her only Hollywood appearance in this adaptation, in sanitised form, played by Gladys Brockwell. In flashback, we see her as a wealthy lady (presumably a widow) in a grand house, not as the impoverished young prostitute of the novel. Her death is placed earlier than in the novel and in somewhat different circumstances. The script bungles the drama of the belated recognition and reconciliation between mother and daughter: here, Pâquette recognises her child, then dies – but Esméralda apparently remains none the wiser. Poignant though this is, it seems an odd anti-climax: did this plot-element seem too melodramatic even for 1920s audiences?These days, the reputation of the film rests chiefly on being a star-vehicle for Lon Chaney as Quasimodo – much overrated, I thought. His make-up was certainly elaborate by the standards of the time – indeed, too extravagant to be convincing. Quasimodo is a twenty-year-old boy with severe disabilities: he is not a human-ape hybrid, which is what Chaney (wearing an alarming amount of false body-hair during the flogging scene) appears to be playing. In a cinematic reversal of evolution, he is more like an ancestor of King Kong: just swap the Gothic towers of Notre Dame for the Art Deco lines of the Empire State Building. The ending, too, prefigures that of the great ape film: the heroic 'monster' is killed off so that the physically attractive young lovers can be reconciled. It's certainly not Victor Hugo! Indeed, having Quasimodo expire in the arms of his adoptive father, Claude, so far overturns the tragic climax of the novel that it belongs in an entirely alternative universe.Without the distortions of narrative and character imposed by censorship, the talents assembled here could have made a wonderful film. Sadly, the NAMPI restrictions left it picturesque but stunted and deformed – much like Quasimodo himself.

Cristi_Ciopron The literary Gothic was, partly at least, architecture—exploitation—and not only at the pair of French authors—Hugo and Leroux—but at the British and even German masters as well …. Both Hugo and Leroux developed, each in his own way, this brand of architecture—exploitation, the romance of a building. Hugo did this for the medieval Paris (--and for the 19th century, when chronicling Valjean's exploits …--), Leroux for the 19th century Paris; a hack like Kate Mosse is, nowadays, in the same vein. Architecture—inspired romance, novel that drives its inspiration from architectural masterpieces (--or, at least, emblematic buildings--). It corresponded to the vague animism of the Gothic/ Romantic project; at the very best, it means atmosphere.It is a pleasure to get acquainted to the sexy divas of the ancient cinema—albeit by means of silent footage only; in previous entries here we spoke about Mss Mary Philbin and Priscilla Dean, now we are glad to meet Mrs. Patsy Ruth Miller—as you might of guessed (Patsy Miller might not be a stunning name for a movie diva, yet Ruth gives it the Biblical note of use to promote the babe to stardom). What these three babes have in common—other than their beauty, and being divas of the silent movies, and living rather long lives, as Philbin made it till '93 (89 yrs), Dean till '87 (91 yrs), and Miller till '95 (91 yrs)—is that they all have been Chaney's movie partners.Mrs. Patsy Ruth Miller was 19 in this movie. She did movie roles in the '20s; then she wrote, and for a time played on Broadway.The Hunchback is a romance imagined by a young man 27—28 yrs. old, in 1829—30. It is one of the most spectacular and finely achieved Gothic romances.As for the movie itself, like many other silent movies it is characterized by a basic plain commonsense realism that has vanished since from the Hollywoodian cinema.The Hugolian masterpiece has been rather often brought to screen, and the Chaney version is one of the loveliest and most successful in terms of art, admirably paced (especially with such a wealth of epic) and lively—watch how nicely it introduces the major characters—and this way you notice how MANY strong characters the Hugolian romance has—Quasimodo, the Archdeacon Claude Frollo (--they won't explain it to you, but an Archdeacon is a high—ranking priest—Catholic, Anglican or Orthodox …-- the most senior diocesan position below a bishop-- the bishop's representative with the duty of supervising parish churches) and his brother Jehan, Phoebus De Chateaupers, Esmeralda, Clopin Trouillefou, Pierre Gringoire—as a large share of Hugo's characters are gargoyles brought to life …--and even when merely symbolic or schematic they still live with unmatched vehemence—some other adaptations, less lively, give the impression of having dropped some of these ….A THOND adaptation ought to aim—like the book—of giving an equivalent of the Parisian cathedral—in terms of people, actions, cityscapes, etc.—the novel being thought, conceived as the literary reply of an architecture (--and, of course, as panorama of the medieval Paris--)—style and composition and characters and romance and thrills—as an equivalent to an architecture.Chaney's Quasimodo is more picturesque and impressive—though, in my estimate, less terrifying than his Erik; anyway, what an actor! Most of his performances are classics, and here the script offered him a ground for his ambitious craft.I feel tempted, fair pals, to compare the two Chaney classics—THOND and THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, as I liked much more the former; yet, I believe the literary antecedent is responsible for much of the strength, and that I might enjoy THOND more simply because its story is fairer. So perhaps not so much the intrinsic merit of the direction, but the wealth of the original book explains the charm of this movie.