The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1997 TV Movie) User Reviews (17)

Harris and Hayek make this decent enough to enjoy

[kriitikko · 6/10 · 6 March 2009]

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.

Great version similar to Disney

[HotToastyRag · 7/10 · 9 March 2022]

I know you'll see his name in the opening credits, but you might watch the entire production without remembering that Mandy Patinkin is in the movie. He's completely unrecognizable, and he masks his voice to talk like he's deaf. I'm famously good at recognizing people, but I couldn't see him inside Quasimodo at all. Well done! Quite frankly, I didn't think he had such great acting talents inside him. He was truly wonderful.

This tv version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame is very similar to the Disney version, and with good reason: Mandy was going to give voice to the character in 1996 until creative differences led him to leave the production and create a real-people version of his own. So, when you see Esmerelda's white goat, the discovery of baby Quasimodo on the church steps, and the Festival of Fools, you understand. Salma Hayek plays the tantalizing gypsy, and it's easy to see why Archbishop Frollo (played by Richard Harris) feels such temptation. This version delves pretty deep into that angle of the plot (but, then again, so does Disney), and Richard whips himself whenever he gets impure thoughts.

Like every version of this classic French story, there are some scenes that are just too sad to watch. I've never been able to make it through Quasimodo's humiliation in the town square; that's where the handy fast-forward button comes in. The rest of the movie is very good, especially as a real-people companion to the Disney classic. Jim Dale plays Clopin, and if you grew up seeing him in the Carry On films, or listening to his Broadway recording of Barnum, you'll be delighted to see him in such a fitting role.

Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to violence and torture scenes, I wouldn't let my kids watch it.

One of the weaker versions but still decent

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 12 December 2013]

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

Flawed but entertaining nonetheless.

[chimera-4 · 23 March 1999]

Technically this movie sounds a bit of a dud. Terribly understated, little to no character development (even the Disney version had more if only just), dodgy make up even though Mandy Patinkin still manages to give an exeptionally sympathetic portrayal of Quasimodo, showing him as the man more than the monster. Some of the scenes remembered from the classic were downplayed where a little spectacle wouldn't have hurt. Most of the performances are 1 dimensional but the 3 main characters are good, Richard Harris is quite menacing as Dom Frollo. Direction is a bit sad in a lot of places giving the feel that the director just wanted to get the scene out of the way and move onto the next one. But despite all these flaws it's still pretty good. You really feel something for Quasimodo, all that he's been through, and the characterisation of him as a man rather than a monstrosity makes you all the more sympathetic. Worth Seeing....

Good fun,

[stamper · 7/10 · 12 February 2000]

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 say

that 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

Competent adaptation focuses on character play

[LARSONRD · 7/10 · 28 October 2007]

Nicely done rendition of the classic melodrama, with Mandy Pantinkin taking a turn as Quasimodo, the bellringer of Notre Dame. Salma Hayek is marvelous as Esmeralda, with Richard Harris quite good as the wicked Monsignor Frollo, supported by a nice score by Edward Shearmur. The film stays faithful to the Victor Hugo storyline, while adding a new subtext about the new printing press' threat to the power of the Church, which adds to the story's existing political class substory and fuels the behind-the-scenes politics between Frollo and the King, within which the story of Esmeralda, Quasimodo, and the idealist Gringoire (quite competently portrayed by Edward Atterton, although both his role and that of Phoebus - a blasé Benedick Blythe - are quite abridged in this adaptation) play out. Jim Dale (reader of the Harry Potter audiobooks) is also quite notable as Clopin, King of the Thieves, whose presence throughout gives the story quite a fine dynamic. Small budget lessens the story's epic impact - and the setting resembles more of a rural farm than the center of Paris, but like most TVMs the story centers on the characters and this focus remains effective and likable. There have been many capable versions of the classic story - none of which have come close to matching the spectacle of the original silent version with Lon Chaney as Quasimodo; however this, along with the Charles Laughton version, is a worthy successor and was very nicely helmed by Peter Medak.

passable version

[didi-5 · 6/10 · 15 March 2005]

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.

The Bell Tolls for Quas on TV

[martin_g_karlsson · 4/10 · 25 February 2006]

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.

An interesting version.

[Ariel-28 · 8/10 · 3 November 2001]

This version of the Victor Hugo story was good as a whole. Quasimodo wasn't particularly ugly, and it was amazing that he had read so much. Esmeralda was sweet, and it was no wonder she rejected Frollo since he looked very old and was far from attractive. However, at the beginning he really wanted to protect Quasimodo.

I was surprised that the art of printing books was so important in the film. It was incredible that Frollo was even ready to kill the King's minister rather than to let the people have books!

The public humiliation of Quasimodo and Esmeralda was shocking. It was touching that Esmeralda tried to appeal the King for the bellringer. I was very delighted that those two became friends, and again, it deeply touched me to hear Quasimodo talk about his appearance.

I had never before seen a version in which Quasimodo addressed Frollo as his father. He wanted to get him to confess his crime, but still, he tried to save him from death. And he was even strong enough to defy his guardian when he said: "You are a freak."

At the end, it was touching to see Esmeralda ring the bells for Quasimodo - at least, he was happy at the moment of his death.

it is not that meant to be..

[Aral_Bateman · 1/10 · 19 October 2006]

-=contains spoiler from both original and movie versions=-

i am a huge fan of Notre dame De Paris musical,i also read book this summer and i watched movie today,in the beginning i was hopeful to watch a good film especially when i saw 6.3 IMDb point.first scenes were good but i actually waited for,theaters scene directly from book,but it was normal but when Esmeralda kisses gringoire i felt something is wrong..they don't even kiss in book,even in musical..

and there were huge gap why Esmeralda being judged by sorcerer,in the book she teaches her goat how to respond numbers of clock or write word "phoebus".. wait there were a phoebus weren't there? in this movie he is some soldier junk nothing more,the creators made Quasimodo's love to show around and they even canceled Frollo's love..but Notre dame was frollo. his thoughts his struggles between love of god and love of human in movie we cant find anything like that all we have is,some villain who is really bad and kills people whose clashes with his thoughts..and not mentioning phoebus,not mentioning love of frollo,not mentioning jehan (brother of frollo) not mentioning mother of Esmeralda (maybe it is OK,the storyline would have chopped much)they even not mentioned the real story.. (another PS:frollo wasn't a opus dei or some cult member he actually in interest with alchemy he tries to make gold..he was stuck in science and religion)

finally don't watch this movie,it is some kind of directors edition to real masterpiece,and if you have watched it before read the book,god have mercy on you..you must read to book immediately..

this movie is worse than hunchback of Notre dame II the animated movie,spend your time with watching Notre dame De Paris musical.. enough said..

A darker version of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame"

[Irishchatter · 8/10 · 4 November 2016]

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!

A diabolical priest

[vanmust · 2/10 · 27 May 2018]

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

Excellent remake of a classic story With a modern twist.

[debrecen · 2 August 2001]

Sometimes it is difficult to judge a reproduction of an old classic film. The remake has to interpret the story to a different generation. I believe this Peter Medak movie will be better received by the younger generation for its modern visual effects and story telling. I recomend this film to high school and college students who will need to write a book report on the Hunchback of Notredame and want to enjoy a great movie at the same time. The casting and acting was great and the directing excellent.

I didn't seek for that.

[anamzfan · 3/10 · 19 March 2022]

This adaptation is not similar to the novel! I thought they will both end with the very same scene ( Quasimodo hugging asmeralda's dead body). It was a disappointment since I wished to reincarnate my virgin feelings when I read the novel ten years ago.

Regardless, Salma is really fabulous.

One of the best.

[tepig-94540 · 8/10 · 28 May 2020]

As I've rewatched it I find myself liking it much better than others, even 1939 where Patinkin draws many parallels from throughout. It's not eye candy nor does it have anything that necessarily "stands out" but that's fine. The flogging is very powerful ("She gave me water!") and personally I believe this is better than 39. The characters are much more into their roles compared to the book. It also takes in the issue of printing from the book and put it into the plot and had it work. It may take a couple rewatches to like it but it's worth it. A very good adaptation.

entertaining but flat

[peacham · 20 July 1999]

Harris is intense and frightening as dom claude an expert actor who knows his trade very well. Patinkin is very sympathetic and hayak looks good but offers little emotion. a decent film but the 1982 derek jacobi version explored characterization much better.

a correct sketch

[Kirpianuscus · 15 January 2023]

Salma Hayek deserved her Esmeralda.

This was the basic thought after the final credits of this not great but nice crafted film. Sure, the great job of Mandy Patinkin is the pillar of this film reminding the animation of 1996, offering the tools for Richard Harris for a dark, creepy character, impressive in each scene.

Fair atmosphere, not bad acting and the courage to offer the correct perspective, sure at level of sketch, to the masterpiece by victor Hugo.

Can be better ?

It is just decent. And this is the only important thing because, not being memorable version, it is a pleasant one.

In short, just correct .