Kirpianuscus something does this film real special. nothing precise. nothing easy to define it. sure, the cast, the script, the location, the dramatic story of Victor Hugo. but, more important, a series of details who impose , for very long time, precious memories. and this is the motif for who it remains one of my favorites films. for a form of poetry who escapes from words. for the clash / sparkles between Gina Lollobrigida and Anthony Quinn.and for a form of authenticity of a period who defines the film as art, not always perfect, but not as product for precise target.

writers_reign I've been trying to see this movie for years just on the strength of a screenplay by Jacques Prevert and Jean Aurenche and it did no harm that the director was Jean Delannoy. The cast I can take or leave though I've got a lot of time for Jean Tissier in the comparatively minor role of the King. People who care about French cinema are acutely aware that this film was made in 1956 when the new wavelet was hovering in the wings. Petulant schoolboy Truffaut had already trashed Aurenche, Delannoy and a gang of other French film makers he wasn't fit to clap a slate for, and semi-amateur Godard was dreaming of his first anti- cinematic movie which turned out to be Brainless. This is exactly the kind of workmanlike, professional piece of craftsmanship they were trying to overthrow, not quite top-drawer but even bottom-drawer Delannoy-Aurenche-Prevert is light years better than Truffaut and Godard on the best day they ever had. No one is going to accuse Gina Lollabrigida of committing the crime of actually acting but if you need a pretty face to play a sensual gypsy girl she was as good as any, as for Quasimodo it could just as well have been Edward Everett Horton beneath all that Max Factor and the make up would be the role. All in all I'm glad I waited.

SnakesOnAnAfricanPlain The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a very hard film to make. Mostly due to the darkness and despair of the original work. If you've only grown up with the Disney version, prepare to be shocked. I truly liked this effort, as it got a lot of the complexities of each character down. Frollo is a man of religion but also science. His faith and logical mind battling it out as he experiences lust. Esmerelda is a victim of her own beauty, but also plays a hand in her own downfall. She doesn't understand her power over men which leads to her angering of the males. Quasimodo is portrayed as not so much an outcast here. He is known by all, but is awkward and unaware of his strength. This is a film where everyone is guilty for their actions, which also makes them all sympathetic. The design of the film is often too much. WIth so many colors and such production put in it comes across as an over the top school production. Less can be more, but with the final heart wrenching scene, you'll probably be left as an emotional wreck.

eroskitten This film is another substandard adaptation.It is like almost every other movie based on Hugo's novel: not faithful to the story. Characters are out of character and their roles have changed. While probably talented otherwise, the actors seem to have no control over their roles. Not one of them plays their part accordingly. However, they are not wholly to blame. The script is poorly written under the pretext of faithfulness.The actors are making an effort. But they are definitely, definitely, out of character.Esmeralda is among the worst interpretations. She is highly sexualized, even flirtatious; she is almost sophisticated in the matters of love. Here, she is no longer the innocent girl of Hugo's novel. She therefore loses the most lovable, endearing quality of her character. Lollobrigida has the other quality: her beauty. Yet this beauty is not enough to carry Esmeralda believably. This is an almost utter failure.A true failure is the portrayal of Claude Frollo. A MAJOR mistake in plot is made here; Jehan, his brother, is "archbishop" in this film. In the novel, Jehan is a low-life, a scholar whose only thoughts are turned toward physical needs. He causes constant pain to Frollo, who is actually the Archdeacon in the text. Jehan is just another reason for the priest's madness, not a tool to satisfy it. Character-wise, he is the same as most Frollo's. He is played evil, painted diabolic, cut down into a one dimensional, unsympathetic personage. The audience can no longer decide for itself what his feelings truly are; the priest is lustful, vengeful, villainous. He looks at his handiwork concerning Esmeralda with joy in this film. By the final act, he has been driven mad; but it also causes him pain in the novel. Esmeralda's pain is his pain, yet he –MUST- do these things. He is lustful, yet the glimmer of love is almost visible. The film destroys that depth, that ambiguity.The other actors are on the same track, yet not quite as severe. The script is shallow at some points, and seems to be missing something.Dubbing quality is undoubtedly imperfect. The film is also low budget, so the unhappy state of costuming and set can be forgiven to an extent.Some viewers may find this version enjoyable. It is a film after all; many have never read the Hugo novel, Notre Dame de Paris. However, die-hard fans and purists will be left unsatisfied.