The Worst Film Ever

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Don't listen to the negative reviews

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

I watched the Disney version of this sort years ago and I can tell you this, this film is way darker. I was really surprised and also saw at the same time, that Quasimodo was killed by his guardian Frollo. Jaysus, Frollo really was such a psychopath, who really wanted Esmeralda and not give a crap about anyone else.I really felt sorry for Quasimodo when he was trying to rescue Esmeralda and thrown into a stand where people threw food at him. It's really hard to watch that scene, especially Frollo watching him be tortured. Seriously, that scene makes you angry with Frollo haha! Salma Hayek looked absolutely stunning as Esmeralda. She really knows how to show those dance moves, even when she was on "Dusk Til Dawn" movie I think that same year with George Clooney & Quentin Tarantino! This movie is really good but it is sad at the same time. Don't be thinking it'll be like the Disney version because I'm afraid it ain't!

Excluding the low-budget animated versions- the sole exception being the Burbank Films Australia one- this would be the weakest, including them it would be one of them. For the best/most faithful adaptations, look to the Anthony Quinn and Anthony Hopkins versions, for the best versions on their own terms my personal favourites are Charles Laughton's and Disney's(Chaney's is also excellent, and Hopkins'). A lot of scenes do seem under-populated(it looks like only less than 30 people inhabit Paris) and key ones like Esmeralda's rescue done competently but indifferently and with not much impact, especially after Laughton's and Disney's versions doing that scene so brilliantly. The whole thing about Frollo not wanting printed books coming to public use and killing someone over it didn't feel that well thought-out and may make one unsure about when the story is meant to take place. The adaptation is far from ugly, it's very handsomely filmed and lit, Quasimodo's makeup is fairly well-done and the landscapes, scenery and costumes are lovely, but some of the sets are too rural farm sometimes and lack authenticity. Characterisation is also thin especially in the case of Phoebus, here so abridged and underwritten that it feels like he wasn't there at all. There is an exception though and that was Frollo, a very interesting and multi-faceated character here. The music however is very stirring and has a hauntingly beautiful vibe that is capable of pathos and chills, while the dialogue is heartfelt and thoughtful and most of the story is compelling. The relationship between Esmeralda and Quasimodo is poignant and so is the ending, and the adaptation does do a fabulous job with Frollo. The sound editing is not a problem either. And the three principal performances are excellent, the acting honours going to Richard Harris as Frollo, very menacing, imposing yet tormented, the very meaning of a misguided villain and one you end up feeling somewhat pitying rather than properly hating. Mandy Patinkin's Quasimodo is often heartbreaking in how he made him wretched yet gentle, it is very easy to sympathise with him. Salma Hayek is one of the more compassionate Esmeraldas and one of the more youthful(if missing out on her innocence) ones too since Maureen O'Hara, also very sultry and beautiful. Jim Dale, Edward Atterton and Nigel Terry are very good as well, though their characters have been better realised in other adaptations(namely Anthony Quinn's). All in all, a decent version but not one of the best of The Hunchback of Notre Dame. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Victor Hugo's book "Notre Dame de Paris" has had a weird luck with film adaptations. No film has been truly faithful to the original story, but none is really bad either. I've seen six films: the 1923 silent film with Lon Chaney, the 1939 classic with Charles Laughton, 1956 Anthony Quinn version which did come closest to the book, 1982 TV adaptation, Disney film and this 1997 TV film, done either at the same time with Disney version or right after. This is also the worst of the six, yet it's not bad, in fact I find it to be nicely entertaining version, though I'd probably recommend any other adaptation before it.The story is extremely simplified and owes a lot to 1939 film, some of the dialog is copied from the film rather shamelessly. The basics are still there: the deformed Quasimodo has lived inside the Notre Dame his whole life, being raised by Archdeacon Dom Frollo. Quasimodo falls in love with beautiful gypsy dancer Esmeralda who shows him little compassion. Esmeralda also becomes the target of Frollo's deranged passion and soon she finds herself framed for a murder she did not commit.The biggest difference with this version to others is that Phoebus hardly appears in the whole story and Esmeralda's love for him has been cut out. Instead of stabbing Phoebus in a moment of mad jealousy, Frollo kills here a minister who has wanted to bring printed books to public use and framed Esmeralda for his killing. This is my biggest problem with this version. Although it's nice that we see Frollo's crusade against printing machines here since they haven't appeared in other versions since 1939, this also makes Frollo seem as a calculating villain and takes a lot out of the character.Still, the late Richard Harris does really good job as Frollo and he certainly has his fine moments in the film that bring him close to the superb performance of Derek Jacoby in 1982 version. Harris is definitely the most memorable in the film, doing his best even when material is not so good. Another great thing is Salma Hayek as Esmeralda. Not only is she ridiculously good looking but her Esmeralda is more compassionate than other adaptations of her, which I like a lot. Sure Hayek is no 16 year old girl here, but previous versions of Esmeralda, like Gina Lollobrigida in 1956 film or even the Disney version, were really neither.In other parts Jim Dale as Clopin and Nigel Terry as King Louis have delightful minor performances here. Mandy Patinkin as Quasimodo and Edward Atterton as Gringoire both do decent job but they're also both left in the shadows of their predecessors. It is though nice to see Nickolas Grace here. I haven't seen him in anything else since his wonderful performance as Blanche in "Brideshead Revisited" series.The 1997 TV version doesn't really come out as any better than other versions of Hugo's book, yet its entertaining film if you give it a chance, if for no other reason, than just to see Harris and Hayek who are both great in their roles.

This version of Hugo's classic tale, directed by Peter Medak, is spoilt somewhat by Mandy Patinkin's make-up as Quasimodo - only one side of his face seems to be disfigured, making him more like the phantom of the opera than the cathedral bell-ringer. But that's a small point.Salma Hayek is just OK as Esmeralda, but she isn't as luminous a beauty as Maureen O'Hara was in the 1930s film version. Edward Atterton is Gringoire, and Benedick Blythe Phoebus - neither particularly memorable.The two in the cast who are really worth watching are Nigel Terry as king Louis, and Richard Harris as the troubled, religious Frollo, ashamed of his feelings towards Esmeralda and jealous of the disfigured misfit he has taken on as his pseudo son. The character is multi-faceted and fascinating.This version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame definitely shows its TV movie roots, but it is still a superior piece of drama, slightly above the average.