Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Inclubabu Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

Gutsycurene Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

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.

DrMMGilchrist The opening of this film – relating the finding of the word 'Ananké' (which the English-language narrator irritatingly mispronounces as 'Anankh'!) on the wall of the cathedral – signals that Jean Delannoy has given us the best cinema version of 'Notre Dame de Paris' yet. It is the closest in spirit to the book in picaresque colour and in its final tragedies. *Some spoilers follow, comparing the book and the film, and touching upon other film adaptations.* While international distribution (especially in the US) meant that Delannoy still had to fudge Claude's priesthood (being addressed as "Maître/Master Frollo"), his sober dress and the fact he works in Notre Dame make it implicit – indeed, obvious to anyone familiar with the book, as French audiences are. His younger brother Jehan is thus restored to his (im)proper and impish self as a wastrel student (Maurice Sarfati), who first appears dressed as an imp for the Feast of Fools. (In the 1923 and 1939 versions, Jehan became a middle-aged substitute for his brother in his relationship with Esméralda.) There are, nevertheless, differences between the French and English versions. Because of the Hays Code, Quasimodo is made *King* of Fools, *not* Pope, in the English dub, the scene being shot with two different crowns. The French version also includes scenes with Pierre after Esméralda's arrest, and an extended scene of Claude's breakdown, returning to La Falourdel's, corresponding to the book's chapter 'Fièvre' – presumably cut because the English title overemphasises Quasimodo.Anthony Quinn and Gina Lollobrigida have top billing, but Alain Cuny quietly dominates the film – as he should. Claude, not Quasimodo, is the most interesting central character: the brilliant, tormented scholar and scientist as Romantic tragic hero/anti-hero. Although over a decade too old for the role, Cuny has the right air of anguished intensity and self-destructive passion. Even as he brings suffering on others, he himself suffers still more deeply, all haunted eyes and strong cheekbones. (An acquaintance observed his hairstyle is too 1950s, but the anachronism is less significant than the fact he has so much hair at all: book-Claude's hair has receded into his tonsure!) This is the only film version that shows his alchemical researches, and sets Louis XI's incognito visit, as 'Compère Tourangeau', in his laboratory, rather than in his rooms in the cloisters. This atmospheric scene captivated me when I first saw the film on TV as a child, and as a teenager I fell in love with Claude in the book (recognising a fellow-Aspie). My chief regret is that (as usual) the passionate confrontation in prison from 'Lasciate Ogni Speranza' is omitted: this Claude is certainly handsome enough for some chest-baring cassock-ripping… He gives us the film's most memorable moments: his rapt face framed by the broken window of the Grande Salle of the Palais de Justice, while in the adjacent pane we see the reflection of what grips his attention – Esméralda dancing; how he intones her name over his experiments (which reminds me of Ezra Pound's marvellous 'The Alchemist: Chant for the Transmutation of Metals': "Midonz, gift of the God, gift of the light,/gift of the amber of the sun,/Give light to the metal"); his torment at La Falourdel's, watching Phoebus (Jean Danet, suitably smug and flashy) seduce Esméralda; scratching 'Ananké' on the wall, watched by an uncomprehending Quasimodo; returning to the cathedral by moonlight, and crossing himself (cut from the English-language dub) when he sees Esméralda in ghostly white. In his last moments, he stretches out his arms, crucified by his forbidden desires, before falling. It is a superb performance, unshowy, but emotionally wrenching.Gina Lollobrigida is somewhat mature and overtly sexy to be entirely convincing as a virginal teenager, but she has glamour, vitality, and (with choreography by Myasin/Massine) dances better than most screen Esméraldas. It is believable that an otherwise ascetic and intellectual priest could be driven to crime and madness for such a beauty. Of course, with such a bright and spirited Esméralda, the question remains as to how she can be so stupid as to fall for Phoebus's smarmy charms, but that is part of the tragedy of the book – and, indeed, such calamities happen in life. Her comic relationship with Pierre Gringoire (Robert Hirsch) is delightful, with a very cute Djali as the third party in their 'marriage'. It is wonderful to see so much of Pierre, without him being rewritten as a conventional romantic lead (as in 1939 and 1982). Clopin is played somewhat younger than usual by Philippe Clay: Villon-esque, a figure from Bosch or Breughel. Quinn is the best film Quasimodo: alarming and touching by turns, unsentimentalised, and believable. Unlike Chaney or Laughton, whose deformities were far too exaggerated, he looks as if he could have survived childhood in 15C. He is deaf, and seems to have learning disabilities, as the book implies. Fleur-de-Lys (Danielle Dumont) and her friends, in their henins and colourful gowns, look as if they could have stepped out of an illuminated manuscript. Phoebus is as obnoxious and shallow as written: only in the English dub is he softened slightly by being made to regret that he could not have saved Esméralda himself.The last part of the story is truncated because of the running-time, hence the change in the events at the Bastille, and in the circumstances of Esméralda and Clopin's deaths. However, it is still far more effective than the bowdlerised 'happier' endings imposed by the 1923, 1939, 1982, 1996 and 1997 versions. The conclusion at Montfaucon is retained, and is movingly portrayed. All in all, this is a thoroughly enjoyable film, which gives a better impression of the novel than any other cinema adaptation to date, and confirms my belief that French literature usually fares best in the hands of French film-makers.

kriitikko It's no wonder that people who have been introduced to the story of "the Hunchback of Notre Dame" by big movie versions, like the 1939 classic or 1996 Disney animation, don't often know what really happens in Victor Hugo's classic book "Notre Dame de Paris". I have seen totally six different movie version of the story, and although none of them is completely bad, only one has actually been really accurate to the events of the book. Although I will always say that the 1939 Hollywood version is the absolute best, this 1956 French/Italian film is closest to the book, as far as plot is concerned. Esmeralda does not fall in love with Gringoire, it's Claude Frollo and not his brother Jehan who lusts after Esmeralda and in the end almost all the main characters die. Yet, in a strange way, it does make some subtle differences also. Esmeralda is not young and innocent girl unaware of the reactions she causes in men. This Esmeralda is more mature, yet even she can't help but fall under Phoebus' charm. Claude Frollo is not an archdeacon, filmmakers probably still afraid of making a priest the villain. Instead he is an alchemist who has lived in the tower of Notre Dame almost his whole life. This is kind of strange since it's said in the film "he is in disgrace with the church". It also diminishes bit of the conflict that happens in him when he becomes obsessed of Esmeralda. Still, I'm sure fans of Hugo can enjoy this version, if they are ready to forgive the few artistic liberties. For a film made in Europe that obviously doesn't have the big budget Hollywood could use, the sets of Notre Dame's cathedral and the 15'Th century Paris are surprisingly well done. Although the low budget does make some scenes suffer, like Quasimodo' "Sanctuary! Sanctuary!"- scene, Jean Delannoy's direction keeps the story going and Georges Auric's music is beautiful to listen to. However some of the English dub does bother in the film that really should have been released in French.The Italian actress Gina Lollobrigida, ones called "the Most Beautiful Woman in the World", plays the more mature and sensual Esmeralda, and she makes it very clear why half the Paris is drooling after her. I was surprised to see how little makeup Anthony Quinn wears as Quasimodo, yet he completely convinces that this person has been seen as a freak his whole life. His performance is very physical, making Quasimodo seem like a beast who tries to be human, instead of Charles Laughton's poetic soul. Alain Cuny is bit too brooding as Frollo, but he does look up to part. Still, I feel screenplay didn't give him enough chances to fully explore the role. Jean Danet as Phoebus is not really anything but a jerk full of himself, but since that's how I see Phoebus I have nothing against him. Philippe Clay seems nothing like the Clopin I pictured from the book, yet there's something about his rather humorous performance that I like. Jean Tissier also makes a very subtle and slimy performance as King Louis XI, who in previous 1939 film was portrayed as a rather good guy. Robert Hirsch as Gringoire is not memorable and Maurice Sarfati as Jehan is simply annoying. Although the 1956 film is neither the best nor the finest version of the story, it does come closest to the book than any other film I've seen and is definitely worth watching. It's not a bad film, yet it could have been far better also.EDIT: I recently saw original French speaking version of this film. I recommend seeing that one. Not only because they speak French so you don't have to bare the horrible English dub, but it also has scenes that were deleted from English cut and Alain Cuny shows a lot more torment and conflict as Frollo.

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.