BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Borserie it is finally so absorbing because it plays like a lyrical road odyssey that’s also a detective story.

Matho The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

lkobler-672-870759 Can't say enough about this brilliant telling of a classic story. An A+ cast that cannot be topped. A truly most-see TV-movie!

DrMMGilchrist I was disappointed by this ITV adaptation of 'Notre Dame de Paris' when I first saw it on TV 35 years ago, and it still disappoints. There may be spoilers ahead, as I compare it with other adaptations and the source novel.While it does, at least, retain from the novel Claude's status as Archdeacon and adoptive parent of the founding Quasimodo, much else is derived from the 1939 Hollywood film, with the romanticisation of Pierre Gringoire and the happy ending it gives him and Esméralda (rather than Djali). There are other changes: Captain Phoebus is depicted as already married, instead of betrothed, and (*spoiler*) Claude's death is placed as the climax of the 'Porte Rouge' episode, rather than at the very end of the story.The chief problems are in the casting. While the actors are mainly well-known and have done excellent work elsewhere, they are not well-cast in this. Derek Jacobi is particularly miscast as Claude. He's too old and the wrong physical type (Tim Piggott-Smith, who plays his subordinate Philippe – an entirely superfluous new character – or Robert Powell – under-used as Phoebus – would have been better in the role). He also comes across as too much the comfortable 'career cleric', not the driven, intense young intellectual and scientist, with his agonising self-mortifications and self-destructive passions. I can't help but see this as more like Brother Cadfael being a bit naughty. In fact, his Cadfael, who has a colourful past, has far more personality than this depiction.Lesley-Anne Down is a pretty Esméralda, but it's not her fault the role is written so vapidly. Gerry Sundquist makes an appealing lead, but he's not the Pierre I love in the book, more like the 1939 film-version. Anthony Hopkins is a competent Quasimodo, but he's not the most interesting character, despite Shoberl's unauthorised re-titling of the book in English, which film-makers seem to prefer for some reason. Overall, this lacklustre adaptation falls between the two other TV adaptations I've seen: it's inferior to the 1976 BBC version, which had the best ever Pierre in Christopher Gable, but still superior to the 1997 US version, which had a far-too-old Richard Harris as a book-burning Claude and Mandy Patinkin as Quasimodo the secret intellectual and author… (Yes, really!) More than ever, I regret the disappearance of the 1966 BBC adaptation starring James Maxwell

Woodyanders Grotesquely deformed hunchback bellringer Quasimodo (a superb and touching performance by Anthony Hopkins) falls in love with sweet and lovely gypsy dancer Esmeralda (a fine portrayal by Lesley-Anne Down). Complications ensue when both Quasimodo's keeper the arch deacon Dom Claude Frollo (splendidly played by Derek Jacobi) and poor, but honest and decent street poet Pierre Gringoire (an engaging turn by Gerry Sundquist) become smitten with the enticing lass as well. Quasimodo protects Esmeralda from an angry mob by giving her sanctuary in the cathedral he works in. Director Michael Tuchner and screenwriter John Gay deliver a strong and faithful adaptation of Victor Hugo's classic story which benefits greatly from a serious, gritty tone, a vivid evocation of a harsh and repressive era, and an equally credible depiction of a cruel world that's largely populated by cold and heartless people with zero tolerance for anyone who defies the norm. Hopkins brings real poignant dignity to Quasimodo and astutely captures the kind and gentle soul that exists underneath the pitiable fellow's monstrous exterior. Jacobi likewise excels as a sympathetic tormented villain who's betrayed by his forbidden lustful feelings for Esmeralda. Moreover, there are excellent supporting contributions from David Suchet as hearty king of thieves Clopin Trouillefou, Robert Powell as dashing cad army captain Phoebus, John Gielgud as pitiless torturer Charmolue, and Nigel Hawthorne as a stern magistrate. Alan Hume's exquisite cinematography, with its stunning lighting and rich use of vibrant color, ensures that this movie is visually sumptuous throughout. Ken Thorne's spare, moody score also hits the spot. The rousing climax culminates in a truly heartbreaking conclusion. A sad, moving and worthy film.

vironpride With every different version of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" that I have ever seen, I hope again that I will one day see a film that copies the novel exactly. Victor Hugo's novel is a tragedy all the way, and it does NOT have a happy ending, or even a semi-happy one! The only version that is most like "Notre Dame de Paris" is the 1977 film described elsewhere in this site. However, the 1982 version comes closer than the earlier ones, which, because of censorship, could not have an Archbishop feverishly pursuing a heathen gypsy female through the dark streets of Paris, laying aside his priestly vows to lust after her to the death. This dark, Gothic romance cries out for black and white--it just doesn't work in color, and the color here is gorgeous. See the 1939 Laughton version to see what I mean. And speaking of the Laughton version, Anthony Hopkins is obviously copying Charles Laughton's legendary performance, and does it quite well--one great actor's nod to another. Has Anthony Hopkins ever given a bad performance? Or has Derek Jacobi, for that matter? He succeeds in making Dom Claude what I have always considered this character to be--not a villain, but a pathetic, pitiable character torn between his holy vows and his forbidden lust for a beautiful gypsy dancer. Lesley-Ann Down is lovely, to say the least, as Esmeralda, and the supporting cast is solid. David Suchet as Clopin is fine in his own way, but it was a thankless task to try to follow Thomas Mitchell's great, over-the-top turn as the King of the Beggars in the 1939 version. Though this version is not as good as it could have been, it still is one of the best, and well worth your time.