Laikals The greatest movie ever made..!

Konterr Brilliant and touching

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Arianna Moses 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.

vanmust It is not the best film regarding Hugo,s popular novel but it is watchable mainly for Richard Harris performance ....by the way he really looks like Nosferatou minus the pointed ears abd nails

kriitikko 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.

martin_g_karlsson This is very much a television version of the tale, the film starts out like an episode of 'Xena...', with little meaningful dialog or character description. It does get a bit more substantive after a while, but all characters are still cartoonish. Salma is the exotic beauty. Richard Harris is an evil and sexually repressed Frollo, fiending to bust a nut up in Salma. The other characters, including Quasimodo are quite forgettable. Its also a sorta liberal version of the story, Frollo is a suppressor of Enlightenment ideals, like the abbot in 'Name of the Rose', and Quasimodo is a champion of liberty. The shadowy side of the Quas character is ignored, though he does pour liquid led on people. He is really only an outsider in that he looks different and enjoys playing with bells more than the average person. Perhaps the film is intended for children, but I doubt it, considering Frollo flogs himself bloody to amend wanting to spank his monkey. A mostly uninteresting and forgettable, but not awful, and sometimes entertaining, rendition of the tale.

stamper A realistic and good performing cast made this a good movie. The ugly, but nice Quasimodo (whose face looked quite ridiculous, but still very misformed), the beautiful and enchanting Esmeralda and of course the mean Frollo. They were all very good, although I must saythat Mandy Patinkin, as Quasimodo, made the biggest impression on me, he really could make you cry. Richard Harris was great as the clergyman torn between his belief and Esmeralda and Salma Hayek, of course, was as stunning and beautiful as ever. As for the story, well I believe I don't have to explain that to anyone.Great, but yet not very much acclaimed or famous film. 8/10