The Hunchback of Notre Dame Reviews

A mi modo de ver la corrupción de las cosas mas elevadas son las mas terribles por infectar una noble naturaleza.

Los reyes que se vuelven tiranos, corrompen peor la sociedad, porque mas alto es el rey por su nobleza que casi cualquier otro cargo.

No existido corrupción mas espantosa que la del Ángel y su caída a los infiernos.

Teologicamente la corrupción del hombre fue su condena, al ser el hombre, criatura de intelecto sobre los animales.

Si nadie se espanta porque un animal se limite a aparearse constantemente de manera exacerbada, eso es debido al mero hecho de que los animales no tienen una propiedad critica, nadie piensa en su grandeza mas que estética, placentera cuando es domestica, y esto es algo que el hombre mismo dota a las bestias, incluso la compasión por los animales es algo propio de la naturaleza humana.


Mientras mas elevadas son las jerarquías humanas, mas bajas y dantescas son sus corrupciones.
Por encima del Rey, a estado el Sacerdote, el factor espiritual predomina sobre el terrenal. Si tanto nos espantan los casos de pederastia y otros que envuelven a corrupción, no a la iglesia en si, sino alguno de sus miembros, que por muy denotado que llegue a ser, es poco comparado a los espantos de las élites mas poderosas de hoy. Si nos espanta mas, aún en esas, es porque sencillamente es mucho mas feo ver cuestiones tan espantosas en la función mas noble, el servir a Dios y a su iglesia.

No iban a esperar de mi, una reseña en pretensiones de objetividad, donde hiciera de lado mi posición religiosa. Esto no representa los valores de la iglesia, pero si representa a algunos que como Frollo, hacen abuso de poder y de sus injusticias. Eso es lo que representa Frollo, hasta el de servicio mas alto, puede caer, y cuando cae, es alto como el final de el Cardenal.

En otro lado, Cuasimodo es como en apariencia muchas cosas humanas espantan, pero por dentro, están llenas de nobleza. Quizás sin intencion fuera, pero no hay mensaje mas cristiano y consciente que ese.

Interpretaciones del tipo "Frollo era el bueno" o "los gitanos no son representados como lo que realmente fueron", ignoran por completo la esencia de lo que la película realmente quiere transmitir. Quizá, y solo quizá, el segundo aspecto antes mencionado pudo haber sido mejor implementado, pero sigue sin ser realmente relevante cuando el punto de la película con Frollo no es si los gitanos realmente practicaban brujería peligrosa o no, si no que independiente a las características de la persona, todos somos hijos de Dios.
Por esto último, es que Frollo representa una versión extremista, deformada, tergiversada (y muy real si me preguntan) de la iglesia. Dentro de todo el paripé propagandístico para rebajar la religión, hay una verdad en que (a veces), verdaderamente el dogma de fe y una filosofía con sentido puede llegar a transformarse en algo que ignora las bases reales de lo que se predicó alguna vez. En ese sentido, la película representa excelentemente ese conflicto.

Hermosa película para ver y escuchar, es como asistir a una ópera. Las canciones sirven para conocer a los personajes e indagar en sus dilemas, aprovecha muy bien su tiempo pues a cada uno le da espacio suficiente en pantalla como para que te interesen. La propia película reconoce que aun que el jorobado está enamorado y le gustaría conocer el sentimiento, pero hay cosas que, por su condición, nunca se van a dar.

Si bien tiene el infortunio de que sus personajes se puedan llegar a traslapar con temas de inmigración, gitanos y demás, resulta solo ser el "seting" y no tiene relevancia para la historia por lo que no tropieza con la misma.

Altamente recomendable.

One of the best and most underrated Disney movies ever. Very well executed and the soundtrack is amazing! I loved it when I was a kid and I love it now. Rewatch it so many years later was so good and made me understand some things that I couldn't as a child.

One of the strangest turns in the Renaissance found Disney crafting more substantive and emotionally mature works. You can see and feel the tension between the artists trying to expand what a Disney film could be, and the higher-ups demanding measures be taken to ensure a healthy chunk of merchandising profits. The Hunchback of Notre Dame suffered the worst from this tension.

 

Half of the film is a thoughtful, dark examination of religious hypocrisy, xenophobia, steeped in Catholic symbolism and a villain who is terrifying for being all too realistic. The other half is cutesy sidekicks cracking wise and making various pop culture references. It’s messy, but it’s grandly ambitious. I think it succeeds more than it fails, and its potential for greatness is evident, even if it is final form is muted and compromised.

 

There is no way to properly tell this story and include a happy ending for its main characters. Disney finds a way to include one, but it feels like a cheat. In fact, this ending, and the presence of the gargoyles as mere slapstick and comedic sidekicks, hinders the film each time it tries to soar. While the city of Paris is burning to the ground, Disney cheats the logical conclusion of the narrative and keeps everyone alive that is good, killing only the villain.

 

It’s easy moralizing from a film that so frequently skirts around it. Much of The Hunchback of Notre Dame takes a long, hard look at Judge Frollo’s religious hypocrisy, delivering a villainous character who is utterly frightening. Sure, one of Disney’s specialties is crafting memorable villains, but so many of them were entertaining in their outlandish scheming and grotesque behavior. Frollo is easily identifiable in our real world. A man who claims piety and deep religious belief while using it as a weapon against mass groups of people he deems unworthy, conflating his suppressed desires and lusts as witchcraft put upon him by a wicked female.

 

When The Hunchback of Notre Dame focuses in on the more realistic and disturbing aspects of the story, it never fails to impress. The backgrounds are a step above anything else in the Renaissance thus far. The cathedral faithfully represented, and the amount of detail staggering. By this point, Disney was pouring large amounts of money, time, and resources into its animation department. The character work is fluid and dynamic, and the various musical numbers gloriously rendered.

 

Three moments always manage to stick with me each time I view the film. “Out There,” Quasimodo’s heartfelt plea to join in with the rest of the world, to find a place of belonging, to connect with others, is a beautiful moment. “Topsy Turvy” a song explaining the day of celebration, and it’s an explosion of color, whimsy, and mirth-making. But the best moment in the entire film is “Hellfire,” Frollo’s condemnation of Esmeralda, his denial of his own lustful thoughts, and a conversation with his own suppressed guilt and thoughts. It’s the most mature musical number in the entire catalog of Disney films, rich with images of Catholic guilt and religious symbols. Disney hasn’t gone this dark and twisted, but loaded with hefty meaning since “Night on Bald Mountain” in Fantasia. I wonder if non-Catholics can appreciate it as much as this (heavily) lapsed one?

 

Not to say that the rest of the score isn’t phenomenal, because it is. Alan Menken and Stephen Schwartz dig deep in religious music for the score, as it is loaded with hymns, chants, and phrases lifted straight from a mass. “God Help the Outcasts,” a lovely prayer for the poor and downtrodden, sung by Esmerelda hammers in on the point the film is trying to make – we are all children of god, and we should look after each other, love one another. She clearly believes in a loving and forgiving god, reminding us that Jesus was an outcast in his time, and it is a beautiful sentiment.

 

But then there’s those damn gargoyles. I agree that Quasimodo needed characters to interact with, and the film briefly flirts with making the gargoyles figments of his imagination, as he has been kept isolated and emotionally abused his entire life. Yet, the film also wants the gargoyles to be real, and to be childish moments of levity. These moments puncture holes in the atmosphere and tone that the film had so consistently been working towards. If I could change one thing, I wouldn’t change the talking gargoyles, I wouldn’t even change using them as moments of levity, but I would change how they are used in these moments. Hearing Jason Alexander’s voice cracking post-modern jokes really takes you out of the moment.

 

And this points to a bigger problem within the Renaissance – the insistence on celebrity voices can occasionally take you out of the film. It was weird enough hearing Mel Gibson as an English settler in Pocahontas, but Demi Moore as the Romani Esmerelda is distracting. It  doesn’t help that her vocal work is merely adequate. Jason Alexander, Mary Wickes, and Charles Kimbrough as the gargoyles are distracting to the point of consciously taking you out of the narrative momentum. Kevin Kline, Tom Hulce, Paul Kandel, and Tony Jay, especially, all do solid to great work in their respective roles.

 

Yes, it is WILDLY inconsistent in tone, but I’ve always had a soft spot in my heart for The Hunchback of Notre Dame. I find it’s ambitious nature quite charming. I appreciate that it’s an American animated film that tried to push the art form away from just mindless family entertainments. It didn’t entirely succeed, but I think it’s an essential viewing experience for even daring to soar so high.

Even though it is probably not considered as one of the best animated features delivered by Disney, in fact, it is one of my favorites. Indeed, I always had a weak spot for their movies which actually tried to deviate from their usual formula and this one was really something else, that’s for sure. First of all, the animation was simply gorgeous, especially the details on Paris and Notre Dame were just mind-blowing. Above all, it is by far their darkest movie, maybe the reason why it didn’t get much love when it was released, but certainly the reason why I thought it was so intriguing. In this darkness, I was also impressed by Frollo who was definitely a great character. Basically, he is easily one of their most sinister bad guys and he was pretty much a hateful racist with a sexual fantasy for a gypsy woman. Unfortunately, not everything did work though. Indeed, even though Quasimodo was well animated and I enjoyed the fact that he was so strong and a great climber, this character was eventually rather poorly developed. Indeed, he is not what you would call standard leading man material, it seems that they didn’t really know what to do with him so he pretty much ended up as the third wheel beside Phoebus and Esmeralda. Anyway, to conclude, in spite of its flaws, I believe it is probably one of Disney's most underrated features,  I really liked the damned thing and it is definitely worth a look. 

It's clear that The Hunchback Of Notre Dame is a Disney film. Many of the key components for a Disney film are here. However, there are some shockingly un-Disney like elements here. And while I wouldn't want all Disney films to be like The Hunchback Of Notre Dame, this is a very nice change of pace.

Frollo, a powerful king and a religious man is in charge of taking care of an ugly hunchback named Quasimodo in order to be forgiven of his sins, specifically, an act of murder. Quasimodo is in charge of ringing the bells in the chapel. But Quasimodo wants to be free, yet Frollo doesn't allow it. When Quasimodo finally does manage to escape briefly, he gets into a bit of a mess, but it helped by a rebellious gypsy named Esmerelda. Frollo, however, is obsessed with doing away with the gypsies, but Quasimodo is determined to help the gypsies which throws his life into chaos.

The Hunchback Of Notre Dame has all the Disney staples: Songs, humorous side characters, romance, Alan Menken score, and a happy ending. But Disney has tweaked the formula a bit, this time around.

The Hunchback Of Notre Dame is significantly darker than most other Disney films. While Disney clearly tries hard not to over do it, there are a lot of intensely dark scenes. Depending on your point of view, this could be a bad or good thing. Personally, I think the level of darkness here really works, even if it may be a bit much for younger kids.

One slightly disappointing thing about The Hunchback Of Notre Dame was it's humor. While there are many attempts at humor throughout the movie, I didn't laugh a whole lot. This isn't because the jokes are dumb, they're just, well, not that funny. They seem mostly more geared to the younger audience.

Rarely have I seen a film with so many songs. I'd like to say there's about 10 songs in the film (though some are just reprises). So it's a shame that the songs aren't very good. In fact, many of them are more like poems as opposed to songs. Many don't have a chorus, and they exist primarily to movie the story along. The songs are in great number, but they just aren't very memorable.

There are two decent songs in the film, though. One is the main theme; "The Bells of Notre Dame," and "Topsy Turvy" which wouldn't be nearly as special without the visuals.

And speaking of the visuals, they are stupendous. I feel like I'm always gushing about how great the visuals are when I review Disney films, and even though I always expect great visuals, I'm always impressed every time. And this is no exception.

The voices are a bit of a mixed bag. Tom Hulce has a less than stellar singing voice, but when he's not singing, he brings emotion and sympathy to Quasimodo. Demi Moore does well as Esmerelda, but there's nothing incredibly impressive here. By far the most impressive voice talent here, is that of Tony Jay as Frollo. Frollo delivers a lot of intense lines and musical numbers that Jay nails.

Though I've never been all that impressed with Alan Menken's scores, he really nails this one. With heavy emphasis on bells and choir, Menken delivers a grand and spectacular score to The Hunchback Of Notre Dame.

While lacking in humor and memorable songs, The Hunchback Of Notre Dame is a solid piece of work. Dark themes, a memorable villain, a winning score and jaw dropping visuals makes this a welcome addition to the Disney canon.

It came as a huge surprise how the original story were worn out, really, I couldn't even dislike it 'cause of 'wow I could never imagine that someone might make THE story into THIS' in my head over and over again. I'm not talking negative here, still not yet, but only of my huuuge wonder. As a Disney movie it is 'why not', as an adaptation of the book I would never call it.

And then I saw someone asking "Eh?? It's a book?? What's the name, who's the author??"..

P.S.: Esmeralda is one hell of a pole dancer here.

Directed by another legendary team of Disney, Gary Trousdale & Kirk Wise, Hunchback is the 7th in the Disney Renaissance era (the duo's other film, Beauty and the Beast is the 3rd) and overall, one of the darkest Disney productions to date. Adapted from Victor Hugo's novel, I've read that Disney strayed too far and I cannot confirm or deny this because I still haven't read the original novel. Now, what sets this apart from most other Disney works is, apart from the dark scenes, is the use religion and other mature themes not previously found in other works. I believe that Hunchback signalled the end of the sweetness and child-friendly scenes which Disney was most famous for and instead bought forward much realistic themes and settings. OK, if not the greatest, then I consider Hunchback to be one of the important Disney productions to date. All Disney fans should watch this at least once!

On to the film: Just like many others, this one also opens with a song and the lyrics are actually very well written. We're quickly thrown into the brooding world of Quasimodo and Claude Frollo by the epilogue and from there it just levels up. The animation is quite realistic and not very 'one-sided' or 'sliding-manner' which means a characters appears to slide to the screen as-if being pushed from behind and the side (check out when Scar from Lion King comes into view after when Simba lies next to Mufasa's dead body and you will understand). The expressions and movements are very real, something that would later expand in Tarzan and the voice over, us usual, is top-notch. Every voice is perfectly suited and they all give a distinctive touch to their respective characters.

In conclusion, watch this and you won't be disappointed but fans who are used to the lighter themes of Disney's previous movies will find it a bit shocking. Well at least this is better than The Black Cauldron, another film in the same vein with dark tones.

7.9/10