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

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

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.

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.