By Eilis The Hunchback of Notre Dame was, in one word, incredible. In one miraculous leap, Disney surged ahead, away from
(if not actually out of) its previous cutesy, protect-the-kiddies-from-anything-resembling-real-life themes. With
simply exquisite animation, soaring music, and beautiful character design, the story of Quasimodo is painted out in heart-wrenching
detail. No matter how much some critics like to gripe about the fact that neither story nor characters conforms much to
the original novel, it's impossible not to enjoy this film just for itself.
Plot: Fostered by the imposing Frollo, Minister of Justice, and forced to live in a belltower, Quasimodo grows up shy,
reclusive, and yet desperate to leave his "sanctuary" for the brighter world outside. When he finally does get "out there",
instead of being happily accepted, he's abused, scorned, and basically sent running for cover. An interesting move, showing
the viewer the instant that the hero really learns that he is, in fact, an outcast. Usually, they seem to be born that way.
There to defend Quasi, however, is the lovely gypsy Esmeralda, who no doubt regrets her actions later on when she becomes
the pivotal point in the love quadrangle which in essence drives the entire movie; aside, of course, from Quasi's inherent
desire to be free of his dark sanctuary.
Characters: Like the disgustingly loyal, endearingly shy Quasimodo, the other characters that populate this film all have
their ups and downs, and are all in possession of an astonishingly complex personality. Esmeralda is neither an all-knowing,
sculpted model of beauty, nor a sweet but entirely too vacuous little girl. She has her own firey, sharp-edged personality,
and is neither perfect, nor especially considerate towards others. (As demonstrated by the fact that she remains utterly
oblivious to Quasimodo's devotion throughout the entire course of the movie.)
As villains go, the glacially sadistic Claude Frollo was a gem. His design was realistic and sculpted, and his motives
twisted throughout the film. If there's one fault I can find with him, it's that he was too obvious about his obsession,
which rather spoils the mystery for older viewers. Ah well, there's always the kiddies to consider.
Phoebus is, well, Phoebus. Drastically remodeled from a conniving womanizer to the gallant new Captain of the Guard, he
comes across, sadly, as a bit of a cardboard cutout hero. Once you look a tad deeper, however, the first impression wears
off. As opposed to the other stars, he's an incredibly human character, capable of emotions other than spunk/shyness/rebellion/sadism/anger.
He makes corny jokes and is beat up at least once by every character in the movie - including the goat. Being severely biased
in his favour, it's understandable that I'd be of the opinion that he didn't get enough screen time, but he needed a tad
more on-screen development, if you ask me. (Which you didn't, but I'm telling you anyway.)
Possibly the most apt adjective for Clopin the Gypsy King, is "mysterious". Throughout the movie, he remains ambiguous,
never entirely on Quasi's side, never quite throwing in his dice with the overarching conflict of Good and Evil. His motives
are obscure at best, but he acts as the movie's narrator with wonderful subtlety, and a miraculous singing voice.
All in all, Hunchback's plot moves along quickly, but not too quickly, and never recoils from the violence and
jealousy prevalent in the original story. In this wise, it's heavily comparable to Beauty and the Beast, Disney's
first(and very successful) venture out of the realm of happiness, flowers, and little talking animals.
If only they'd gotten rid of those stupid gargoyles. The mysterious bell ringer of the Notre Dame cathedral is a shy, misshapen hunchback named Quasimodo, who has been raised
by the self-righteous Judge Claude Frollo to believe himself a monster. But when Quasimodo sneaks out to participate in
the yearly Festival of Fools, he meets Esmerelda, a gypsy dancer who sees the good in him and becomes his friend. Though
Quasimodo thinks he's found love, Esmerelda's more interested in Phoebus, the dashing new Captain of the Guard. Frollo,
however, also sees Esmerelda at the festival and becomes obsessed with her beauty. Soon Quasimodo and Phoebus are the only
ones who can stop Frollo from terrorizing all of Paris and save Esmerelda from a fiery fate.
If a Disney version of a Victor Hugo novel doesn't sound like a particularly good idea, that's because it really isn't
one. Gone is the gloom and grit of Paris. Gone is the stirring tragedy that was so central to the original work. Instead,
we get bushels of Technicolor confetti, singing gargoyles, and the inevitable happy ending. The worst part of it is, "Hunchback"
really is a good, solid animated feature. If you trim a few song numbers and drop-kick the notorious gargoyles, the result
is a very serious, very thoughtful film that thoroughly deals with the material at hand. The animation is flawless and a
joy to watch. The characters are well-rounded, if a bit overdramatic, and the vocal performances are top-notch. In fact,
the only real problem with Disney's "Hunchback of Notre Dame" is that it says it's based off of Victor Hugo's novel, but
in reality only borrows the character names and the concept of the hunchback in the cathedral.
So, all copyright squabbles aside, the film is one of Disney's most adult features in theme and execution. The best of
this example is the controversial "Hellfire" sequence where Frollo sees the image of Esmerelda dancing in the flames of
his fireplace as he sings of deadly sin and damnation. The complexity of the villain is what most people remember about
the film, but the real success was the effectiveness of the protagonist. Quasimodo may not be the most eye-pleasing Disney
hero in history, but he's one of the most fascinating to watch. Like the Beast from "Beauty and the Beast," it's his imperfection
that makes him truly endearing. All the handsome princes in the world can't match up to Quasi in terms of sheer personality.
Frollo is a masterpiece of villainy, the likes of which we'll not soon see again. Phoebus and Esmerelda are satisfactory,
which is all they really need to be, and Clopin, our narrator and the only tolerable source of comic relief in the movie,
is wickedly fun.
Should Disney executives be severely scolded for kiddifying one of the greatest works of French literature ever written?
Yes. Does that mean we should not see the movie? No, but I am in favor of putting a big fat disclaimer on the front of it
telling everybody to be sure and read the book too. Or to at least see the Lon Chaney version. Isn't it great to find that Disney is finally venturing away frome its little kid, moral of the story, safe from harm,
sweet movies and going to some new levels of entertainment. HoND is one of the most intense, exciting, touching animated
films Disney has produced. It is one of those that is a definite crowd pleaser, has an important message, and everyone can
identify with in some fashion.
Quasi is an ugly yet intriguing person. He is locked up in a tower by his evil master, Judge Claude Frollo and longs to
be normal and walk "out there" with everyone else. C'mon! Everyone of us at one time has wanted to be different and fit
in. He's like a lonely little scared child who longs to fit in. Am I the only sane person on this site? After all, it seems that everyone else absolutly loves this movie. Now, I want
to know WHY you are so fond of H.O.N.D. I don't get it. It starts off looking promising, but after someone dies 20 seconds
into the film, it kinda looses it's magical touch. The characters are well developed, and with the exception of the gargoyles,
Frollo, Colpin, and Phobeus, they're okay. (maybe it would have been easier to just put, "I liked Quasimodo and Esmerelda.")
I don't like the gargoyles for one very strong reason. They were created soley for comic releif, yet, they are not funny.
They are annoying and make me want to throw something large and heavy at the T.V. screen. Esmerelda was an okay character,
as far as heroines go, but she's no Jasmine, Belle, or Ariel. What I'm wondering, is why on earth Disney had her go with
Phobeus, I mean HELLO, that kind diminishes the whole, "Don't judge a book by it's cover." After all, in all those other
stories with the same moral, doesn't the ugly guy(sorry, Beast)and the girl get together? Oh well. Frollo, well, he's just
weird. What's with the whole, "The hero doesn't kill him, he falls to his death without any help AT ALL from the hero."
Maybe I'm just weird, but the only reason I can think of to watch H.O.N.D. is to see the Belle, Carpet, Pumba, and That-lady-from-the-little-mermaid-who-doesn't-really-do-anthing-important
all-in-one cameo.
Eva says chicken :) Just the thought of Disney doing such a dark story like the Hunchback of Notre Dame seems utterly wrong but Hunchback
turned out OK in the end. In parts it works in its favor and others against it.
What works well in this movie is the story. Since it's based on a great story to begin with it's filled with a lot of
good plot points and some good dialogue. Quasimodo and Clopin are both well developed characters and Esmeralda is a nice
break from the bland Disney heroines that usually scatter their movies. There are some good animation sequences too.
Because they used such a dark story though, the Disney elements don't work as well or don't work at all. The gargoyles
seemed like they were shoehorned into this movie and are just annoying to watch. Their song "A Guy Like You" is the worst
part of the movie. The songs didn't seem to fit too well with the story and at times are a chore to sit through. The crowd
scenes weren't very convincing either. I also thought the way the villain Frollo dies was a bit stupid.
I may sound a bit harsh, but ultimately the good outweighs the bad here. Disney's done better, much better, but Hunchback
is still a good one to watch. The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a definite Disney classic, mostly because it dares to be different and drift away from
the cute, safe, funny, side-kicky classics we're used to.
The characters are all unique in their own way (with the exception of the gargoyles, who can get very annoying when they
want to), some in a more likeable way than others, some in a less likeable but still memorable way. Quasimodo, the infamous
hunchback, is oneo f Disney's sweetest and most sympathetic characters ever. Anyone who's ever felt like an outcast and
wished to have friends and be like other people can relate to him. Esmeralda has some gypsy temperament and she's beautiful
and kind, but I still wouldn't rank her among the best Disney heroines. She sort of stays in the background as an important
yet bland character that we never learn much about. On the other hand she seems independant and capable of defending herself
and others, on the other hand she seems to be left as the helpless victim. Phoebus is nothing but a Hollywood-type knight
in shining armour, boring, predictable and always has a comedic line handy to lighten the mood. If it would fit his character
or serve the story, it wouldn't both me, but he just does so in a stand-up comedian kind of way, you can almost hear the
"Bada-boom-kashinnggg!" drum sounds in the background every time he shoots out one of these lines.:P The gargoyles serve
no other purpose for the story than the comic relief, they could have been well left out unless Disney wasn't shooting for
a G-rated film. The best characters are without a doubt Quasimodo, judge Claude Frollo and the gypsy king, Clopin. Frollo
is THE best villain in a Disney film. Ever. He has motives, he's racist, he thinks he's on a mission from God when his deeds
in fact prove the other way around and he has twisted morals and inner fights. He is obsessed with Esmeralda and his lusting
over her clashes with his own morals and drives him over the edge. Clopin has much more into him than one would think at
first sight. He can be the funny clown, the mysterious storyteller, the charming yet strong gypsy leader or the righteous
defender of justice. His mask may disappear during the movie, but nobody can still ever really tell what different "masks"
he's wearing.
The story is about accepting everyone as they are. The only thing that clashes with this moral is the fact that at the
end of the movie Esmeralda chooses the handsome, boring knight in his shining armour, Phoebus, over the ugly yet sweet hero,
Quasimodo. If Disney was going to change the original story this much, (in the original they both died in the end and Phoebus
betrayed Esmeralda and married someone else) why not go all the way and let Esmeralda choose Quasimodo instead? The music
is incredible, Alan Menken truly brought out the atmosphere of the film in the music, both the songs and the score. It's
one of his best works. The music ranges from the threatening gregorian choirs to the beautifully soaring and touching songs
of Esmeralda and Quasimodo. Frollo's song "Hellfire" is one of the bravest scenes Disney has ever made and I applaud them
for that. In that scene, Frollo sees Esmeralda's shape dancing erotically in the flames of his fireplace and he sees blackhooded
judges representing his own guilt appearing to accuse him of his lustful thoughts. Quite on the contrary, Quasimodo's innocent
and romantic dreams of him and Esmeralda together in "Heaven's Light" soar to the heights and make everybody wish it to
come true for him and everyone else deprived of love.
This is truly a wonderful film that's still one of my favorite Disney films. The music, the animation and the story are
timeless. The only reasons for dropping one star out of the final rating are the gargoyles and Esmeralda going off with
Phoebus (like I said, if they were gonna change the story so much, why not go all the way through?).
Spoilers
By CZ 
By Anon
Spoilers
By Princess Jasmine 
Spoilers
By Squirrelperson
Spoilers
By JessKat
Spoilers
By gty
i just had to add my two cents in when i saw someone giving only a miserable
one star! i mean, please at least give the people credit for the breathtaking
animation, beautiful songs, dramatic plot... i could go on, but really, i just
wanna write in to say how much i love this show! that's all, and have fun everyone!
Spoilers
Spoilers
Spoilers It had many things going for it: A darker, more adult story line, for the most part, breathtaking songs and beautiful art with a cast of interesting characters. So how did it fail?
Disney has a big problem of trying to please too many people at a time. In all honesty, I'd like to see a movie that appeals to both 5 year olds and 21 year olds for the same reasons. The hunchback tried to incorporate that by having a dark story with religious subtext and religious commentaries and simplifying the plot--in all honesty, Disney doesn't know how to interpret from novel to the screen. The characters, although clear and in my opinion, the strongest Disney's done, are not true to the book. The entire story is not true to the book. I'm all for creative liscencing and changing some aspects around, but if you change the character, plot and ending, change the character names and call it original!
Overall the animation is beautiful; the use of color is aesthetic, and although the background characters are kind of boring, its nice to see background characters that move fluidly.
The characters range from the deformed Quasimodo and the beautiful Esmerelda, the 'dime a dozen' Captain Phoebus and the 'Holier than Thou' Judge Claude Frollo, and throughout the film, we're subconsciously taught about accepting peopel for who they are, and not what they look like. Then the movie gets slammed for Esmerelda hooking up with Phoebus, while Quasimodo apparently ends up with nobody.
Last time I checked, the movie ends with Quasimodo being accepted by the people of Paris. That's what he wanted in the beginning. He has an entire song about it. And Phoebus and Esmerelda had no qualms what they looked like(their artists did, but that's besides the point)--Phoebus certainly doesn't look like a pretty boy to me. So what if two mutually attractive people hook up? Phoebus was more than just a pretty face. He was willing to find Esmerelda and rescue her while Quasimodo wanted to remain in the cathedral. Phoebus rushed into the miller's house to save the family-sure, stereotypical hero, but he did so probably knowing the consequences. He was an educated officer. If, however, Disney had kept Phoebus to his original jerky character, yeah, then it would have been crummy if they hooked up. But, Phoebus was a good guy. Drastically out of character from the book, but he was, nonetheless, one of the good guys. You can't be angry at him for being good looking.
My favorite character was also done out of character from the book: Judge Claude Frollo. He had motive--motive which is much more believable than other recent disney villains who are more opportunatists than anything else. He thought he was on a mission to cleanse the wicked to save as many souls as he could.
Now, this would have been fine on an adult film, but Disney made this movie kid friendly, which is the biggest mistake you can make for something in such an adult nature. Correct me if I'm wrong, but few eight year olds know what things like pergatory are, even if they are Catholic. So why they threw in those gargoyles is beyond me. They seem to upset the whole story.
All in all, this movie had a lot of things going for it, some really
awesome, others not so hot. In my honest opinion, go and see this movie
and decide for yourself. Don't show it around little kids, however.
Slightly older children might have a couple questions about it, but it
shouldn't be too over thier heads.
Spoilers This site is hosted by DrakNet