Mandy Patinkin as Quasimodo, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Mandy Patinkin as Quasimodo

The 1997 version of Quasimodo is very much a throwback to Charles Laughton’s depiction in the 1939 version. There are some differences to the character but the focus of this Quasimodo is very much sympathetic and heavy on the pathos.

Mandy Patinkin as Quasimodo, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Mandy Patinkin as Quasimodo

Quasimodo in this version is softer and sweeter than in the past versions. There is no darkness to him, even Disney Quasimodo was darker than this version. He is the only Quasimodo not to be a part of the kidnap attempt instead was trying to help. He is also the only Quasimodo to be an intellectual, having read every book in the Notre Dame’s library. His sad sweetness mingled with his intelligence makes him likable.

Mandy Patinkin as Quasimodo, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Mandy Patinkin as Quasimodo

Mandy Patinkin also does a great job at portraying Quasimodo. He gives a great physical performance as well as an emotional one. In particular I love his walk.

Mandy Patinkin as Quasimodo, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Mandy Patinkin as Quasimodo

Despite his likeability, he’s little boring. He’s too generically nice. If he had an edge or had arc it would have made him interesting but in taking way him kidnapping Esmeralda it ruins the pillory scene and robs Quasimodo of his arc of trusting Frollo 100%.

Mandy Patinkin as Quasimodo, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Mandy Patinkin as Quasimodo,

This Quasimodo could have been great, the performance was great but the interest of the character was made void but him being too nice and sweet.

Next time; Frollo

Richard Harris as Frollo, 1997 The Hunchback picture image

Richard Harris as Frollo

3 Thoughts on “1997 Quasimodo; Sweet, Sad and Boring

  1. Esmee on 03/01/2014 at 7:10 pm said:

    And they picked some really good actors…Old Wizard from Harry Potter, Rube from Dead Like Me and Selma Hayek. It’s a shame, because the actors can only do so much with a lousy script and either too much or lack of direction.
    I even sort of remember when this first aired on TNT back in ’97 and how cool it seemed. It also had a “making of” segment right before the movie. Back then I had a bed time and I didn’t get to stay up and watch the whole movie.

  2. Esmee on 02/28/2014 at 11:26 pm said:

    This had the potential to be a relatively decent adaptation, but for some reason there is almost no character development…which makes the movie kind of boring.

    • jess on 03/01/2014 at 12:36 pm said:

      It really is boring. It’s really a shame because it has almost everything to be decent but the script is awful

Post Navigation