I simply don't understand why everyone praises this movie to such an insane degree. One of the reviews calls it "the peak of art in Hollywood cinema" and another "one of the best Hollywood movies ever". Uh...really? Have you watched it recently? Sure, the technical achievements are great. The set of Notre Dame looks breathtaking and huge. And sure, it has a great story to work with, but they're already basing it on one of the best books I've ever read. As an adaptation of Hugo's novel, and as a standalone movie, it does a forgettable job.
Let's begin by saying something positive about the movie: Charles Laughton's performance as Quasimodo. He dominates this movie in every scene. Not only is the makeup fantastic, but you can feel the pain and misery of this classically tragic character every time he utters a line, or even just looks at the camera. If it weren't for Laughton, I'd have given this movie far lower than a 5. Every other actor is forgettable. Esmeralda is an awkward Maureen O'Hara early in her career. Never mind that she looks NOTHING like a gypsy, but her performance is standard and rather boring. O'Hara would become a good actress in the 40s and would sadly pass away in 2015, but this early work is nothing special. Cedric Hardwicke takes the complex, brooding, conflicted character of Frollo, and turns him into a generic, racist bigot. He and Quasimodo have no connection whatsoever. The complicated interactions of characters that gave the book its intensity and drama are not to be found here.
Maybe the reason I dislike this movie is because the book raised my expectations. I suspect those unfamiliar with the story, being exposed to it for the first time, would enjoy this movie quite a bit, simply for the fact that it's a great story. But as far as adaptations go, there are better ones. Even the Disney movie, in my opinion, better captures the spirit of the book. Rather than manifesting itself as a stiff, stunted poor man's version of the Hugo novel, the Disney version has its own dark tone and identity, and it works. Minus the singing Jason Alexander gargoyles.
One might say that it was very good at the time. After all, it came out nearly eighty years ago. But look at what else was released in 1939. The Wizard of Oz. Gone With the Wind. And one year before that, The Adventures of Robin Hood. Two years before, La Grande Illusion. All of those are masterpieces, with better acting, smarter scripts, and greater depth.
Like all versions of "Hunchback", this one creates a world of ignorance and bigotry, where laws are based on millennia-old traditions and petty prejudices triumph over logic. It succeeds in creating this world, though it feels particular ham-handed. In one scene, the King asks some of his courtiers about Christopher Columbus's voyage around the world, to which they exclaim that the world is so obviously flat, and Columbus is such a fool. Even though the fact that the world is round was common knowledge in Europe since the time of the ancient Greeks. And every crowd in this movie is absolutely temperamental. One minute, they worship Quasimodo as a king; the next, they call for his death; then, when he saves Esmeralda, they cheer again. The gypsies seem to love Gringoire at first (an incredibly pointless character, I might add, even in the book, where he's just Victor Hugo's self-insert) and then prepare to execute him. The movie is disorganized and clumsy, taking the romanticized, Gothic tone of the book and making it absurd.
This movie has some great moments. Laughton's performance. The grand set of Notre Dame. The intense final climax where gypsies invade the cathedral. But the rest of it is utter crap, and I say that without a moment's hesitation. Therefore, it evens out. If you hate Disney, hate reading, and want to see a pretty faithful adaptation of the story, feel free to watch it. Otherwise, I would pass on this one, check out "Hunchback" at the library, and dive into the dark, complex story that Victor Hugo created.
Let's begin by saying something positive about the movie: Charles Laughton's performance as Quasimodo. He dominates this movie in every scene. Not only is the makeup fantastic, but you can feel the pain and misery of this classically tragic character every time he utters a line, or even just looks at the camera. If it weren't for Laughton, I'd have given this movie far lower than a 5. Every other actor is forgettable. Esmeralda is an awkward Maureen O'Hara early in her career. Never mind that she looks NOTHING like a gypsy, but her performance is standard and rather boring. O'Hara would become a good actress in the 40s and would sadly pass away in 2015, but this early work is nothing special. Cedric Hardwicke takes the complex, brooding, conflicted character of Frollo, and turns him into a generic, racist bigot. He and Quasimodo have no connection whatsoever. The complicated interactions of characters that gave the book its intensity and drama are not to be found here.
Maybe the reason I dislike this movie is because the book raised my expectations. I suspect those unfamiliar with the story, being exposed to it for the first time, would enjoy this movie quite a bit, simply for the fact that it's a great story. But as far as adaptations go, there are better ones. Even the Disney movie, in my opinion, better captures the spirit of the book. Rather than manifesting itself as a stiff, stunted poor man's version of the Hugo novel, the Disney version has its own dark tone and identity, and it works. Minus the singing Jason Alexander gargoyles.
One might say that it was very good at the time. After all, it came out nearly eighty years ago. But look at what else was released in 1939. The Wizard of Oz. Gone With the Wind. And one year before that, The Adventures of Robin Hood. Two years before, La Grande Illusion. All of those are masterpieces, with better acting, smarter scripts, and greater depth.
Like all versions of "Hunchback", this one creates a world of ignorance and bigotry, where laws are based on millennia-old traditions and petty prejudices triumph over logic. It succeeds in creating this world, though it feels particular ham-handed. In one scene, the King asks some of his courtiers about Christopher Columbus's voyage around the world, to which they exclaim that the world is so obviously flat, and Columbus is such a fool. Even though the fact that the world is round was common knowledge in Europe since the time of the ancient Greeks. And every crowd in this movie is absolutely temperamental. One minute, they worship Quasimodo as a king; the next, they call for his death; then, when he saves Esmeralda, they cheer again. The gypsies seem to love Gringoire at first (an incredibly pointless character, I might add, even in the book, where he's just Victor Hugo's self-insert) and then prepare to execute him. The movie is disorganized and clumsy, taking the romanticized, Gothic tone of the book and making it absurd.
This movie has some great moments. Laughton's performance. The grand set of Notre Dame. The intense final climax where gypsies invade the cathedral. But the rest of it is utter crap, and I say that without a moment's hesitation. Therefore, it evens out. If you hate Disney, hate reading, and want to see a pretty faithful adaptation of the story, feel free to watch it. Otherwise, I would pass on this one, check out "Hunchback" at the library, and dive into the dark, complex story that Victor Hugo created.