While looking like a standard Disney film this is actually surprisingly dark (despite making many changes to the source material to make it suitable for kids), but that doesn't stop it from being a good film that fully deserves to be included in the list of 'Classics'.With good songs, and a 'I know that voice' voice cast, this was an enjoyable film I hadn't seen as a kid. Seeing how dark it is I know why! It's well worth a look.

I watched this for the first time today, hoping that I'd enjoy it even though I'd heard bad things about it, just like I did with Pocahontas. I was disappointed. Here's what I thought about what:Story: The plot was strange, and I was annoyed with the great amount of things that were left out from the original book. On the other hand, I was getting goosebumps and chills when Esmeralda was about to be burned. The battle was no joke; though there was no blood, it had fire and spears. It was captivating and exciting. With the incredible battle but how the plot had little connections to the book, I give the story 5/10 stars.Characters: Quasimodo and Esmeralda were great characters, and Frollo is one of the best and most wicked of Disney's villains. He had a cold voice and grand song, but it was sometimes hard to tell what he thought or whose side he was on. I didn't care for the rest of the characters. Again, there weren't connections with the book! Captain Phoebus was a good person, not sly and betraying as he was in the book. Esmeralda's mother and a poet that fell in love with Esmeralda were left out. There were talking gargoyles, which were new and unnecessary. The narrator was actually a character, a rather obnoxious one at that. With the missing and new characters, as well as how some changed, I give them 3/10 stars.Music and singing: Frollo's song, Hellfire, is honestly one of the best Disney villain songs ever. It was thrilling and had so much drama and even beauty to it. The French chorus in the background made it even better. "God Help the Outcasts" and "Out There" were good as well, but there was another song that the gargoyles sang that only made the story dwindle and was, again, completely unnecessary. 7/10 stars for the music and singing.Art and animation: Some of the poorest I've ever seen! The animated movie that came before this was Pocahontas, and it was gorgeous with all its colors and shadowing. This, on the other hand, was poor. Though there were amazing details, the colors were dull and shadowing sloppy. 1/10 stars for the art and animation!Humor: Pretty good, but there was very little. If your child is watching this, then they probably won't get the jokes, for with the little humor there was, it is more adult-like humor. 5/10 for humor.Acting and voices: The acting was well-done, but Esmeralda's voice was too high-pitched and obnoxious. Also, the narrator was annoying. 4/10 stars for acting and voices.So, in the end, though this has a few great songs and incredible action, the animation and story, as well as the alterations and disconnection with the book, ruined it. The average number of stars is 4.

Outside of the of popular 90s Disney animated movies lies one of the most dark, human, and honest feature films created by this "squeaky clean" production company. The most adult themed content found in other rated G Disney pictures were subliminal and immature sexual allusions. In the Hunchback of Notre Dame, issues of superficial, racial, and religious prejudice are brought out to the forefront for the audience to contemplate.If it wasn't for the goofy gargoyle characters to lighten up the mood every so often, the world this picture inhabits is quite bleak. Frollo orders the genocide of gypsies because he cannot deal with his lust for Esmeralda. Frollo tries to drop baby Quasimodo down the well before he is caught by the priest. The locals of Paris are portrayed as a fickle mob: in one moment cheering on Quasimodo for who he is, then turning, laughing and ridiculing him moments later. Towards the back end of the movie the people of Paris are again swayed by one speech to revolt against their own officials. Must they always listen and believe whoever is on stage speaking?What ultimately sets this apart from other Disney films the most is that the main character doesn't get the love interest in the end. Was he only cared for by Esmeralda out of pity? Leave it to Disney to tell kids that saving the day doesn't get the girl. You have to look handsome too.

Our main hero is Quasimodo, a supposedly hideous man who has been locked up in the castle by Frollo, whom we'll get to later. One of my problems with this movie is that Quasi is not nearly as hideous as he is portrayed. He's more of an ugly-cute. He's not attractive, especially compared to his costars, but 'the most hideous man in all of France' he is not. But my main problem is that this film professes a moral that it doesn't matter what you look like, yet what's Quasi's reward for being the hero. You and I both know that if he'd been more handsome, he would have gotten the girl (honestly a sexist concept in of itself, but that's for another day), the beautiful Esmeralda. But he doesn't. He merely gets to be accepted by the public and treated like a normal human being. What kind of a reward is that? Esmeralda ends up with the traditional blond, handsome prince, Phoebus, who is so forgettable I had to look up his name before I wrote this review. That's garbage. For all his hardships, Quasi basically gets the 'reward' of being the third wheel.The one bright spot among our cast of heroes is Esmeralda. Besides having a gorgeous name, she's entertaining, energetic, flirty, and cunning. I'm not really sure if she's that different from the other Disney Princesses (yes, I know she's not actually a princess, but Disney plays it fast and loose with the branding; if this movie had been more successful, you bet she would have been there), but she definitely feels different. She feels more experienced, more mature.Honestly, I wouldn't have minded if they took out the Hunchback and her prince and instead made it about her and Frollo, It really wouldn't have been an adaptation of the Hunchback of Notre Dame anymore, but it would have been a more interesting, better-told story than the one we ended up getting.Frollo himself is far and away the highlight of the movie. He's the kind of Disney villain that's scary when you're a kid and downright disturbing when you're an adult. Before I rewatched this one, I thought Scar was far and away the best Disney villain ever. Now I'm not so sure. If you asked me right now, I'd give the edge to Frollo. He may not have killed Mufasa, but he is wondrously, gloriously, terrifyingly insane.In fact, at the moment of writing, I'd even go so far as to call him arguably the best straight-up villain in film. That voice, that outfit, that authoritative, slimy charisma; it's impossible to look away when he's on screen. He steals every scene. He, plus the many, many wonderful shots in the film (including one in which the pattern on the main stained glass window of the Notre Dame is projected onto the ground on which Esmeralda is standing) are what elevate this film above its contemporaries and make it a truly great film and underrated in the massive Disney animated canon. I hope there comes a day when this film is fully able to come out from the shadow of The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast and really, truly stand on its own.For the first act or so, Frollo is just a captivating, impressive villain. Then comes Hellfire. Other than being the best song in the film and one of the best songs in the entire Disney renaissance, other than being partnered with a beautiful visual sequence that, like real destructive fire, is as painful as it is unignorable, it completely reveals Frollo's state of mind. This is his one moment of weakness, and it disgusts him. And what does a man like Frollo do when confronted with his weakness? He wants to destroy it and bring back the stony façade he regularly projects, for that is all a withered, black soul like himself has left.What is his weakness? He wants Esmeralda. And I don't mean he wants her to lock up in his castle or tie up on the train tracks. He wants her in a lustful, sexual, carnal sense. Of course, the film doesn't use those words, but it's as clear as the water on a bright sunny day. To see emotions like this expressed with the lush Disney bigness is as surreal as it is terrifying. Yet there's a certain current of reality to all this that immerses you in his crazy, twisted world.He refuses to accept this thoughts, and thus they go more twisted and perverted. He seeks to snuff them out and so wants to kill her or burn the city down trying. And that's exactly what he does. He burns half of Paris to the ground. We see him torch an individual home with his own hands. He tries to chop off Phoebus' head. And it's fairly clear that if he got Esmeralda alone to do whatever he wanted with her, he'd kill her, but not before raping her first.Yes, this is a G-rated kid's movie.And because of the nature of animation and Disney animation in particular to shape the environments around the emotions of the characters, you feel every bit of what I just described. It's well-done, evocative, and kind of unbelievable.While a mess of a film in some parts, the parts that are good are so good they more than make up for it. This is one of the great Disney Renaissance movies, and I hope Disney gets around to the live-action adaptation. It's truly unique.