Warren Clarke as Quasimodo & Michelle Newell as Esmeralda
If you like the 1977 version, I understand. I get the appeal of it. As of now it is the most book accurate movie version that exists. But being book accurate does not necessarily make for a good movie.
Accuracy to the source material can’t hide that this version is dull. From the sets, to the cinematography, to the depictions of the characters; everything is underwhelming.
Even when I first saw this movie is my early Hunchback obsession days, I thought this version was a Feast of Snores.
The good news is that I don’t think this version was out to be a seminal version. How could it be when they don’t even have even a model for Notre Dame? Or any exterior sets. It was just a version made for TV with a limited budget. I don’t think the bar was terrible high on this version. They did the best they felt like with their resources and got out another version of Hunchback.
Would I recommend you watch this? If you’re some weird Hunchback completionist, like I try to be, then yes but you might get bored like I do every single time I watch this version. And for the purposes of this review series that was a lot mostly because I forgot a lot of it even with repeat viewings.
Esmeralda & Quasimodo, La Esmeralda, Kremlin Ballet Company, Moscow
After seeing a lot of version that felt like no effort was put into them it was refreshing to see that this ballet version tried to create an all round good HUnchback adaption. It told a version of the story that fit limits of a ballet but also catered to the advantage the medium can provide. Was this a perfect version? No, it did make some weird decisions with regards to the source material and add-ons, like that greek myth in the second act and have the Pope of Fools also in the second act.
For the most part this Ballet was good which why it’s harder to review. It’s a decent version of the book but even better if you let yourself get lost in the artist of ballet. Also helps if you like/appreciate ballet more than I do.
Like I said, Good Version of Hunchback are harder to review so let’s go for a not so good version. What version should be next?
Next Version for Review?
1977 (67%, 14 Votes)
Dingo version (24%, 5 Votes)
Other (Please Says in the Comments) (10%, 2 Votes)
Total Voters: 21
Poll won’t expire for a while, may not get to the next version till the fall. This summer been hard/busy for me.
Say what you want about the Enchanted Tales or Dingo versions, at least you can say they are not boring. They are contemptible versions of Hunchback but they have their own unique brand of bad. The other Burbank version of Hunchback can’t even boast that kind of ineptitude. It’s so painful boring. There is nothing to this version, no interest, no emotion, no heart, no humor, no pretty colors, or lines. It’s not even bad in that fun stupid way. I hate this version. It is the worst and yes I am saying the Dingo version is marginally better. I would rather watch the Dingo version over this version, not happily but under extreme duress.
I’m so sick of these Disney knock-off quick cash-ins versions of Hunchback. Next time we’re going with a high art form version like an Opera or a Ballet or something A fancy adaptation of Hunchback! But I need a break from review posts for a little bit.
PS – I might be posting a little more sporadically for Wednesday and Thursday posts. I haven’t really decided the frequency of posting since I know people enjoy the casting posts* and I don’t want to give up on Once Upon a time posts either but burn-out, other personal issues, and life in general have been plaguing me for lack of a better word @@.
*Casting Suggestions are always welcome, just leave a comment.
As I have said on the spectrum of Hunchback movies, The Secret of the Hunchback falls toward the bad side. It’s not the worst one but it’s far, far from the best.
What makes it not as bad as the Dingo version, which we’ll get to someday, or the Enchanted Tales version, which I try to forget about, is that this a Hunchback movie with trite moral but it makes sense with the kid friendly subject matter. It’s also has way better animation than the Dingo version but that isn’t a lot.
Quasimodo in Angel form
Don’t get me wrong, The Secret of the Hunchback is dumb, very dumb. It has the stupidest conclusion in a Hunchback movie ever. Quasimodo is a actual angel in disguise with his hunch hiding his wings. That is so stupid that I can’t even process that fully, even now. It’s like something a child wrote thinking they are deep.
The Secret of the Hunchback has stupid songs, bad animation and weird out place humor, which make it different from other cheap knock-off Disney versions but it’s still dumb.
Quasimodo is just being Quasi
Next Version is going more off the cuff as it’s recent. Try and guess… it shouldn’t be hard.
Despite its flaws Notre Dame de Paris is the one of the best adaptions of the novel. It captures the spirt of Hugo and the characters better than any other version to date. Is it perfect? No but you don’t get much closer to the book and it does it own thing very nicely. And it brought musicals back to France.
Belle with Garou, Daniel Lavoie, Patrick Fiori and Helene Segara
Easily this my favorite version. To be honest, I could spend more time on Notre Dame de Paris since I didn’t really get into the any of the other casts. In fact that is something I have always wanted to do even before thehunchblog officially started. I more than likely will return to Notre Dame de Paris and discuss the various casts more probably on Wednesdays at various interval, since Wednesdays are like a free-for-all day. Heck, there is a new Italian tour going on so there are a lot of casts to get through and I would like to discuss more about the costumes.
Garou as Quasimodo and Helene Segara performing Danse mon Esmeralda
So this isn’t good-bye but a see you later Notre Dame de Paris.
Next month is a theme month (Guess the theme if you dare), so there won’t be a version starting in October. Next version starts in November and trust me when I say it’s one of the infamous bad ones.
Esmeralda, Quasimodo, and Laverne King’s Academy Hunchback of Notre Dame
Having been in a High School production once I know that King’s Academy put a lot effort into their production of The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Do I wish somethings were different? Yes, like I wished Phoebus sang and I wish his name was Phoebus but in all honesty I don’t think this production was meant for me. It was meant for the students, family, and the school and that is fine. It’s a decent re-telling of the Disney movie and the German musical Der Glockner von Notre Dame and really that is all it needed to be.
I will say that while the kids are all talented, the real stand-outs are the girls who play Esmeralda and Laverne.
Next Version – I can’t say right now as I’m debating between two, It’s between a good version and a bad version and even if I did know 100%, it’s a secret.
Also I’m going to take a break, reviews will resume in January.
Esmeralda singing God Help the Outcast Disney Hunchback of Notre Dame
At best it’s watchable which is more than I can say for the Dingo version or the Enchanted tales version which one can only watch because they are so bad you can’t look away. The 1986 version isn’t so bad it’s good it’s just meh. Which considering the amount of laziness half-ass workmanship that went into this version, meh is high praise.
The Enchanted Tales version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame has got to be one the worst Hunchback versions there is. It’s full of bad technicals, annoying characters, terrible songs and the single worst moral I have ever seen in a children movie. A Handsome Quasimodo?! That should just not be. I’m not a purist, I just want the basics. If looks don’t matter why is he even drawn handsome. GAH!
Melody and a “handome” Quasimodo
I LOATHE this version.
Next Hunchback Version – The 1986 Australian Version… sigh…………. just sigh…..
The 1986 Australian Version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame
What can I saw about the Madeline episode that features a meager attempt to reference the Hunchback of Notre Dame? It’s a lazy, confused mess that would rather talk about writing even though the people who wrote it don’t know the first thing about writing. It’s not charming, cute or insightful. It is weak and torture to watch and I didn’t care for it on any level.
Next Hunchback version after a short Winter Break. If you have a suggestions, let me know because I haven’t made up my mind yet.
Sets of the 1982 Version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame
There are two types of Hunchback movies; the ones that are well done but do not even pretend to follow the book and there are the types that follow the book but lack any sense of effort by the cast and the crew. The 1982 version however falls in between these types. It has a lot of weird flaws and does commit a major sin where Esmeralda is concerned but it feels like a genuine effort was put into this version.
So is the 1982 version good, adequate, or awful? I would venture to say it’s good, it’s not as great as it could have been but considering some of the other versions that exist this one is one of the better versions.
Next Hunchback version – I haven’t decided yet ^^”