Notre Dame de Paris (1998)

Let's be realistic.

hyped garbage

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Wow! Plamondon and Cocciante's sung-through musical adaptation of Victor Hugo's classic novel is stunning: moving, exciting, funny, tragic. The cast is superb, the staging striking, the score melodic and exhilarating. In many respects, it's one of the more faithful adaptations, although the modernisation of some aspects of the setting is not entirely successful. There may be *some spoilers ahead*, as I make comparisons with the book and other adaptations.Pierre Gringoire's role has been expanded to function as our streetwise narrator and guide through the story: Bruno Pelletier, a wise-cracking, adorable delight, is at his most mischievous in 'Val d'Amour', surrounded by Folies Bergère-style harlots! The other main characters fulfil the roles one expects. Luck Mervil is a dynamic, if youthful Clopin (it's a bit of a jolt when he says he's brought up Esméralda as a father – they look the same age!), and comes into his own in the marvellous 'Cour des Miracles' scene, in which Pierre narrowly escapes hanging. Garou is an impressive and moving Quasimodo. Hélène Ségara is a graceful Esméralda, though perhaps *too* dignified – I was more convinced by Lola Ponce in the Verona recording. Also, script-wise, there are problems with adaptations (like this) which give her a stronger, more mature personality, because, while it's more convincing in terms of her background, the plot hinges on her gullibility and immaturity re: the vain and duplicitous Phoebus (Patrick Fiori). A more plausibly streetwise Esméralda would be more likely to see through him and either avoid or manipulate him. Daniel Lavoie is heartbreaking, and a fine vocal presence, as Claude (although, as in most dramatisations, a couple of decades older than the character). He has some of the best songs, too: 'Tu vas me détruire', 'Etre prêtre' and 'Un matin, tu dansais' – and it helps that the lyrics make powerful use of some of Claude's speeches from the novel. But then, his plight – torn between his desires and his vows, between his traditional ecclesiastical education and the new learning of the Renaissance (here expressed in a duet with Pierre, 'Florence') – is what drives the novel and gives it its tragic heart. He also depicts the Archdeacon's increasing mental breakdown, up to the final hysterical outburst that precipitates his death (dramatically staged). I'm unconvinced by the semi-modernisation making him a racist: the only gypsy with whom he really has a problem in the book is Esméralda, and that's because of his attraction to her. Julie Zenatti is effective as Fleur-de-Lys, here portrayed as an adolescent, but shrewd and scheming: she knows what Phoebus is, and seeks to secure her hold over him by telling him to "hang the gypsy".The minimalist sets work well in terms of allowing the dance sequences to stand out, and to focus attention on the main characters. However, as mentioned already, I'm not entirely convinced by the partial modernisation. The grafting on of modern political themes – undocumented refugees, police racism and brutality – jars when we also have songs such as 'Florence', which places the action in the Renaissance and anticipates the coming Reformation. A full modernisation of setting might work (Dresden Semperoper did a 'Chicago'-style production of Schmidt's 'Notre Dame', with Esméralda-as-Roxie Hart), or a full mediaeval staging (as done in the Russian youth theatre Sed'moe Utro's production in Novokuznetsk), but this is neither one nor t'other.Overall, though, this is a magnificent show, and (bar its omission of subplots around Esméralda's real parentage and Claude's relationship with his brother) is closer to the novel than most film versions. Also, it passes the ultimate test for any musical: you will start humming and singing some of the songs afterwards!

Despite not being a true musical performance this is truly a great performance with great singers.Garou with his special voice as the hunchback.A performance i really like.I could sense the pain in his voice.Beautiful Helene Segera as Esmeralda.A vulnerable soul in a racist world.Patric Fioiri as the confused soldier not knowing to whom to give his love.Daniel Lavoie as the priest Frollo torn by the love for Esmeralda and his faith.Bruno Pelletier with his beautiful voice playing Gringoire the poet. Great dance and stage work. Well written music that express all the feelings from each character Great ensemble in a great piece of musical history.

I'm a great music lover and musicals are among my favorites movies. I've seen as many musicals and musical comedies as I could, but Notre-Dame de Paris is still the best so far. All the singers involved have extraordinary voices and good acting talent, the dancers have been so carefully chosen that their performance simply amazes you. Richard Cocciante's music is simply divine and unique. Although a great music writer (see also Le roi soleil) and singer himself, Notre-Dame de Paris is the greatest success of his life. The story generally follows the plot Victor Hugo established in his famous novel with some very witty modifications operated by Plamondon. The words are so artfully chosen that one can simply transfer back to Hugo's epoch and relive the story despite the fact that it now takes place on a mere stage. This is the reason why I think this great musical is generally more valued by French speakers or at least with some knowledge of French.As about the cast: Garou is just perfect for the part of Quasimodo (unforgettable and unique voice), Patrick Fiori and Julie Zenatti- two young beautiful voices to become huge stars of the French musical scene, Daniel Lavoie (just perfect for Frollo's part, human and malicious at the same time- Frollo I mean!!!),Helene Segara as a suave,elegant and refined gypsy girl- far more appropriate than the Italian or English Esmeraldas (although well-known singers such as Tina Arena played in the English version of Notre-Dame), and last, but not least, Bruno Pelletier as Gringoire, one of the most beautiful and powerful voices ever. I wonder... does this man ever breathe?Just watch this video (or go and see it in Paris if you have the chance; I'll certainly go as soon as I can) and I assure you that you will listen or watch it all over again (especially Belle, which is my favorite song ever).And one more thing: my husband has always hated French language. The moment he saw Notre-Dame de Paris has started learning it.

This is definitely a great musical, definitely one of th best adaptation of the original work. As the previous person said, but there was a mistake made by him or her, Bruno Pelletier was Gringoire, not Frollo. The whole musical was amazing, every singer had an amazing performance, communicating emotion even to non-french speakers. It has beautiful music and lyrics, as well as singers that can sing them well. Out of every one of them my favourite is definitely the Quebecois Bruno Pelletier. He had a very beautiful voice and played the character of Gringoire really well (one thing to note is that Gringoire's character is changed a lot, but Bruno Pelletier was superb in his role.) Even thought there are changes from the original work the musical stayed rather true to the original story. A work very worth seeing, even if you don't understand one word of French it can still touch you. (there are subtittles in many language)