The acting in this movie is really good.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

When I marathon the Universal Monster movies, this one usually ends up left out. If I was smart, I would say that "Hunchback of Notre Dame" isn't a horror film, instead a period melodrama. While Quasimodo is frequently featured next to Frankenstein and Dracula, the film is low on horror content. The truth is I remember disliking the movie and felt no reason to revisit it. Leaving "Hunchback" out all-together isn't fair though. After all, "Dracula" and "Frankenstein" wouldn't have happened without it.The movie is beholden to the conventions of Hugo and Laemmle. Despite getting title billing, the hunchback isn't featured in large portions of the film. The gypsy Esmeralda's love affair with the captain of the guard Phoebus takes up half the run-time. Hugo's themes of social unrest take stage in this subplot. Esmeralda's adopted father, Clopin, king of the gypsies, plots revolution against the apathetic king. His daughter falling in love with a noble doesn't sit well with the guy. The themes of the haves versus the have-nots are never more apparent then in the scene where Clopin and his thieves storm Phoebus' party. The poor stand on one side of the ballroom, clothed in rags, the rich on the other, in elegant gowns. Even Quasimodo is a gear in the machine of social hierarchy. The film's villain controls the hunchback. When the gypsy girl flares Frollo's lust, he forces Quasimodo to kidnap her. Caught by the guards, the deformed servant suffers for his master's crimes. The hunchback turning against his boss is indicative of the story's overall themes of revolt.Potentially interesting themes are undermined by the commitment to melodrama. Differing from the novel, Esmeralda is saved from the gallows. Following the novel, she is actually royalty, the daughter of a rich woman, kidnapped as an infant by gypsies, her birth mother driven mad by the lost. This information is delivered flatly by a very knowledgeable, exposition-prone bit player. Esmarelda's true identity as a princess doesn't affect the plot much. Frollo's villainous machinations and Quasimodo's rebellion are motivated by their passion for the girl. This would probably be fine if the character had more depth. Patsy Ruth Miller looks elegant but the character is pushed around by the whims of the plot. Phoebus, a cynical womanizer in the novel, is transformed into a bland romantic hero, practically obsessed with the girl. The story of class warfare gets lost amidst the romantic entanglements and period grandeur. Hugo's criticism of the Catholic Church is excised totally, Archdeacon Claude Frollo becoming a kind man of the cloth. The role of villain is shifted to his brother, Jehan. Despite this, Brandon Hurst's performance is a highlight, sneering and glaring from under his cap. Even Hurst gets a romantic moment, confessing his love to the girl in her dungeon prison.Even if he isn't the main character, Quasimodo is the most interesting character. Lon Chaney's performance is legendary. Performing under extensive make-up and a fifteen-pound silicon hump, he conveys pathos with only his body language. The moment when Esmarelda comes to the hunchback's aid as he suffers on the pillory is touching strictly because of Chaney, gratitude clearly visible on his face. Chaney vends the hunchback's love with longing looks, selling the romance better then the script can. Quasi's last act before he dies is to ring the bells, celebrating Phoebus and Esmarelda's love, another memorable moment. Chaney overacts at times, sticking his tongue out and grasping his hands. Still, his performance is probably the best thing about the film. Especially since Quasimodo's evolution to anti-hero is a bit rough. Dropping wooden pillars and boiling lead on innocent, rioting gypsies doesn't exactly endear him to the audience."Hunchback of Notre Dame" isn't a horror film but is still visually spectacular. The sets of Notre Dame are beautiful and moody, Gothic arches echoing through the entire church. The Court of Miracles is another fantastic set, teeming with life in cramped, rocky locations. People in ghoulish skeletons costumes dance out from under dark bridges. Deep shadows seal the eerie atmosphere. An extended visit to a torture chamber is another effective, horrific scene. Ultimately, these elements sell me on the movie, not the overwritten, routine story. I probably prefer Disney's version and the Charles Laughton take appears to be the most critically acclaimed but 1923's "Hunchback" endures for a reason.

this is first off a very sad movie, the battle that Quasimodo faces within when he falls for Esmerelda, there 's lot's to this movie , you have revolt revenge and of course love. Lon Chaney did a remarkable job it's hard to say which of his performances are his greatest because I really love them all,, it seems in this movie there are so many characters running around constantly, I don't know how many extras were used in the making of this film but it appears to be a lot. I love Quasimodo's trademark of ringing the bell. this film has all of the old world classic stuff that you want to see, sort of the medieval time period ,, kings queens and stuff like that, the Cathedral of Notre Dame is much like a character in this movie,, I would definitely recommend this to anyone who is a fan of great early silent movies.

Once you have seen Lon Chaney in his incredible make-up, and witness his acrobatic tumbles along the walls of the Gargoyled Cathedral, you will never forget it. A testament to a visual Artist and an enduring presence on screen.He becomes a dual persona of Monster and Man in the same shot. Although heavily masked with horrific features that are truly scary, there is undoubtedly a Heart and Soul beneath the Wordly exterior.The Film is superbly mounted and populated with peasants and pageantry that make this more than Chaney and the Hunchback but it is far less when he is absent. A must see in its newly discovered transfer from a 35MM Print with Tint and Score. Try and erase the memory of all of those cut, and awful Public Domain Videos that have been around for ever and rediscover this one before making final judgments and comparisons to the many other Filmed versions.

The first of the oft filmed Victor Hugo classic featuring Lon Chaney as Quasimodo is filled with early epic quality and some heavy duty overacting in supporting roles not to mention the frightful state of the print which unfairly detracts from the films overall quality.Lon Chaney is an impressive bell ringer but aside from a few acrobatic moments amid the gargoyle seems restricted in his oppressive costume and make-up. Along with Phantom of the Opera this may be Chaney's most famous role but I feel not one of his greatest performances. Ernest Torrence as Clotin, King of the Beggars is far more effective and memorable than Chaney's posings .William Worsley's direction offers little as the rest of the cast overacts and the film's tempo wavers and becomes disjointed (blame here may once again also be affixed to the horrendous shape of the print). When it comes to the big crowd scenes Worsley is no Griffith in building a fever pitch. Shying away from graphic violence and the unbridled rebellion DW puts together in Orphans of the Storm made two years earlier and dealing with the same locale. Worsley offers some neat overheads of Quasimodo's gargoyle eye view of things but some of his "massive crowd" scenes are sparse such as the scene of the impending execution of Esmeralda. It look's like the blood lusting rabble of Paris slept in that day as stragglers can be seen meandering up to the scaffold in what is normally a shoulder to shoulder SRO event. Historically significant The Hunchback of Notre Dame deserves attention but when put into context by comparison with the other epic of that year (Orphans) you wonder what the hullabaloo was all about in the first place.