The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923)

To me, this movie is perfection.

Redundant and unnecessary.

The first must-see film of the year.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame is another sad story about a disfigured man falling in love with a beautiful lady. Although a work of fiction, the film is a borderline horror film much like the Joseph Merrick's story (see: The Elephant Man 1980 - which is based on true life of Merrick) yet the two stories are completely different.Lon Chaney, Sr. played the part of Quasimodo so believably well. Just simply brilliant. The rest of the cast in this silent film classic is also great - wonderful performances.If you liked this movie then try to find copies of 'London after Midnight' and 'The Phantom of the Opera' - both starring Lon Chaney, Sr.9/10

With the exception of the 1996 Disney version this is the most famous film adaptation of the 1831 novel of the same name by Victor Hugo. The film is about a deaf, half-blind, and deformed man named Quasimodo who is the bell ringer at the church of Notre Dame in Paris. The movie states that it takes place ten years before Columbus discovered America which would place the film at 1482. Now there is also a beautiful gypsy by the name of Esmeralda who has been adopted by Clopin, the king of the beggars. Esmeralda falls in love with the Captain of the Guard, Phoebus de Chateaupers. However, Clopin disagrees with the crossing of the two classes and starts an uprising plus Claude Frollo (the Archdeacon at Notre Dame) attempts to seduce Esmeralda. The story is overall pretty interesting and it follows the novel much closer than the majority of movie adaptations out there although there are still a few key differences.The acting in this picture is a mixed bag with Lon Chaney stealing the show as Quasimodo. He is amazing and truly looks like he could be a deformed person in that position. Chaney especially does a good job at getting his emotions across without the use of spoken dialogue. Patsy Ruth Miller does an above average job as Esmeralda but with the high budget of this film I expected some better acting with her character. Most of the remaining actors do a pretty good job in their roles but nothing spectacular.When it comes down to the technical aspects of the film it is very impressive for 1923. All of the sets are grand in scope and truly set the time period and location perfectly. Lon Chaney's make up is extraordinarily good with him doing his own makeup. Also the music is very good and a lot of it goes along with the film better than most silent film scores. Where sound effects are used they are used excellently as well.So overall there aren't any major problems with this film but there are some flaws. The story is pretty good but not anything amazing. As for the acting you have Lon Chaney who does a spectacular job while the rest of the cast is merely good but nothing great. Special effects and music are really good in this movie though and they all work very well for the time. In conclusion the movie is flawed but does enough right to make it worth watching so give it a try especially if you enjoyed the novel. Score: 8/10

The first of the oft filmed Victor Hugo classic featuring Lon Chaney as Quasimodo is filled with early epic quality and some heavy duty overacting in supporting roles not to mention the frightful state of the print which unfairly detracts from the films overall quality.Lon Chaney is an impressive bell ringer but aside from a few acrobatic moments amid the gargoyle seems restricted in his oppressive costume and make-up. Along with Phantom of the Opera this may be Chaney's most famous role but I feel not one of his greatest performances. Ernest Torrence as Clotin, King of the Beggars is far more effective and memorable than Chaney's posings .William Worsley's direction offers little as the rest of the cast overacts and the film's tempo wavers and becomes disjointed (blame here may once again also be affixed to the horrendous shape of the print). When it comes to the big crowd scenes Worsley is no Griffith in building a fever pitch. Shying away from graphic violence and the unbridled rebellion DW puts together in Orphans of the Storm made two years earlier and dealing with the same locale. Worsley offers some neat overheads of Quasimodo's gargoyle eye view of things but some of his "massive crowd" scenes are sparse such as the scene of the impending execution of Esmeralda. It look's like the blood lusting rabble of Paris slept in that day as stragglers can be seen meandering up to the scaffold in what is normally a shoulder to shoulder SRO event. Historically significant The Hunchback of Notre Dame deserves attention but when put into context by comparison with the other epic of that year (Orphans) you wonder what the hullabaloo was all about in the first place.

This movie is an awesome production from start to finish. When there's a mob scene, it's a full tilt mob. The "Court of Miracles" is really populated by hundreds of Paris' "down and outs." Watching the hunchback navigate the façade of Notre Dame is breathtaking. Universal spared nothing making this picture, and it shows. And of course, Lon Chaney as the hunchback was both believable and repulsive.I cannot add much that hasn't already been said. I cannot recommend this movie highly enough, from viewpoints of both historical importance and pure entertainment. Finally, I recommend checking out Charles Laughton as the hunchback in the 1939 version; it too is a superb interpretation of Hugo's novel.