The Hunchback of Notre Dame

Somewhat wheezy and dated adaptation is hampered by sluggish pacing in the first half, and a screenplay full of overly expositional clangers. Redeemed somewhat by Laughton's magnificent almost wordless performance, and Hardwicke's chilling Frollo. O'Hara is appealing, but given little to do.

Good story, beautifully shot. O'Hara is stunning and Laughton gives an excellent performance. It could use a little tighter direction in the second half though, and it does have the occasional really out of place line. "This here is a new invention, a printing press, look at how marvelous it is, it will revolutionize communication."

I'm surprised at myself at how much I *don't* like this picture. After a while, you just get tired of a Paris where every male is hopelessly in love with Esmerelda. For my money, these stories about The Great Nobility Of Man that were written in the 19th century before we found out the truth (Nazism, Manson, etc.) just don't age well *at* *all*, just like how I don't take communism remotely seriously either. Great closing line, though: "Why could not I have been made of stone?"

Still the definitive version of Hugo's novel, with Laughton not only poignant and menacing but *believable* as the ill-fated Quasimodo. Painstakingly detailed sets and crisp black-and-white cinematography likewise aid in making this a precious nugget from RKO's Golden Age.

I don't know. It's good. I guess I just respected it more than I really enjoyed it.

Having not seen the Disney version of this story yet, I'd be curious to see how they handle scenes of murder and pouring molten metal on people.

Charles Laughton says so much just with his face. When utters his first word it hits you that he spent so long acting silently. His characterization of Quasimodo would set the bar for all future renditions of the character and it's obvious to see how much it's inspired the Disney adaptation in particular. Cedric Hardwicke is chilling as Frollo who is given a little more pathos than many adaptations. The set is magnificent! But in the end, it all comes down to Laughton's heartbreaking performance

Love Laughton, always. Great scenery, big crowds...you can tell money went into this. Not familiar with the story, but this adaptation certainly seemed to drag. Had a sense of knowing what was going to happen and there werent any powerful dramatic scenes to overcome that. So a big movie without big moments. Until people get melted by molten metal.

Charles Laughton tops Lon Chaney as The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939)! One of the few major epics RKO produced and it's an dazzling spectacle! Apart from Laughton's splendid make-up job and memorable performance, Maureen O'Hara gets introduced in grand manner to the American audience. Superb job all-round!

too odd for me.

Maureen O'Hara is brilliant as usual.

undoubtedly great story and text, good acting as well

The movie itself is just okay, but really great make-up and performance by Laughton makes it above-average.

A powerful tale that touches on so many themes: prejudice, religious fanaticism, ethnic persecution, the power of the press, unrequited love. Laughton is captivating, grotesque and pitiable. The sets used to wonderful effect, aided by some glorious shots. Maureen O'Hara does very little for me here, either as an actress or as the type of woman who would arouse so much passion. And there's an occasional lack of subtlety. These are relatively minor quibbles, however. I really enjoyed this.

85.375

When I first saw this, I began to read crazy Marxist propaganda in it. I was most probably wrong, but this film is carried by a strong sense of cinema and one of the greatest performances from one of the greatest actors, Charles Laughton. The Dude who played the priest wasn't too bad either.

Great classic.