Truly the worst movie I've ever seen in a theater

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

A Major Disappointment

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

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.

Considering that RKO was not renowned for epic film making, the production mounted for this version of Victor Hugo's classic story is surprisingly elaborate and effective.The Paris set is a beautiful creation and possibly the greatest work by Van Nest Polglase, who with the producer Pan Berman is chiefly remembered today for the elegant art-deco designs for the Astaire-Rogers musicals.The centrepiece of this remarkable set is the replica of Notre Dame cathedral which was only built to 50% height of the original; the towers above were added as an optical effect by use of a hanging miniature in some shots and by incorporating a glass painting in long shots. It's very convincing.Dieterle was the perfect choice to direct this story. A student (and later collaborator) of Max Reinhardt, he marshals the huge crowd scenes (no CGi here - those thousands of peasants are all real people) with aplomb and his mastery of expressionistic imagery informs every frame.Alfred Newman brought an intelligence to the musical score rare in Hollywood. His on screen credit "Musical adaptation and original composition by" reflects his skillful combining of original renaissance choral music by Tomas Luis de Victoria with his own work. He also uses a stirring Hallelujah chorus by uncredited Austrian Jewish émigré Ernst Toch (in Hollywood to escape the Nazis) for the memorable scene where Quasimodo rescues Esmeralda, reprised at the film's closing sequence as the camera pulls back from Notre Dame.It's a great pity that a better restoration cannot be achieved for this beautiful film than is currently available on DVD. While the source print is serviceable, it is often poorly defined and suffers from many scratches. Perhaps it is the only print now extant? I would also love to see the original trailer rather than the re-release version.While some may wish Basil Rathbone could have been released from contract at Universal to play Frollo, I think Cedric Hardwicke was ideal casting. As for Laughton, this may well be his signature role and a masterly example of great acting with hardly any dialogue at all.As Mr Sinatra once said - "You can wait around and hope - but you won't see the likes of this again"

earth is flat "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" was obviously a quality production. After all, it has some dandy actors (such as Cederic Hardwicke, Henry Davenport, Edmond O'Brien, Thomas Mitchell, Laughton and Maureen O'Hara), nice costumes and lovely sets that must have cost a fortune. And, it's also a lot more watchable than the old silent version with Lon Chaney, Sr.--so I do recommend you watch it. However, I do have one reservation--it plays very fast and loose with the original story by Victor Hugo. In Hugo's version, the story is not a nice tale with a happy ending. No, pretty much everyone dies and it's a downer! But, only Hollywood would think to 'happify' it!! It's a shame, as the film had a lot going for it--including Charles Laughton's lovely performance as poor 'ol Quasimodo.Oh, and the history teacher in me feels compelled to object to a statement early in the film that everyone thought the Earth was flat back in the 15th century. This is a myth--and people DID know that the planet was round. I could go on and on explaining it, but if you really care, do an internet search using the terms 'flat earth myth' and you'll see what I mean. They knew the Earth was round even in ancient times--and the folks in the Middle Ages and Renaissance weren't nearly as stupid as we'd like to imagine.

Now THIS is a MOVIE! Don't over-analyze, just revel in it. The texture of this film is incredibly deep, showing exactly how effective black and white could be. I always feel like I'm time-traveling when I watch this movie. Charles Laughton, of course, is spectacular - he was a gifted actor with a singular vision. Maureen O'Hara -stunning. Edmond O'Brien (who I adore) - at 24 he's as beautiful as she is! Together they are breathtaking. Not a Thomas Mitchell fan, but I have to admit he's perfect here. The last shot is truly amazing. Never again in the history of movies has the stable of character actors been so rich as it was in 1939. To paraphrase Norma Desmond, they made movies then! Enjoy enjoy enjoy!