Review: The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996) · 6:51am Aug 19th, 2015
Since its rather obvious that I have far too much free time on my hands, me and my sister decided to watch Disney's 1996 adaptation of Victor Hugo's epic tragedy The Hunchback of Notre Dame.
Because when I think Disney, I think Victor Hugo tragedies. Yeah.
Suffice to say, this adaptation is not well executed. Now, I haven't read the novel, so I'm simply judging the film on its own as a film. It would be unfair for me to compare it to the novel, since, as I said, I haven't read the novel, and therefore have no point of reference. Now with the disclaimer out of the way, let's move on.
The animation overall is passable, but lacks the richness of, say, Beauty and the Beast, or The Lion King, or the earlier masterworks of Sleeping Beauty or Snow White. Here, everything is rather cartoonish, which, when coupled with the dark material, makes it feel oddly clashing. However, there are some really great moments, such as pretty much every single scene with Frollo, who is animated beautifully, and voiced wonderfully by Tony Jay. Quasimodo also gets some good moments, and Tom Hulce does a great job voicing him.
The score by Alan Menken is probably his best since Beauty and the Beast, if not his best period. Its got a true sense of epic scope and drama, and really carries far more emotional weight then the rest of the film. Also, Stephen Schwartz's lyrics are, for the most part, strong, with the exception of 'The Court of Miracles' and 'A Guy Like You' numbers, which feel better suited for deleted scenes.
In the case of Esmerelda and Phoebus, however, I don't buy their love story, nor do I really buy either of them as major protagonists. Esmerelda is far too self righteous, and more often then not causes her own troubles by blatantly thumbing authority in a very stereotypical 90's 'Strong Female Protagonist' kind of way, that's dated severely, not to mention Demi Moore feels oddly miscast. Kevin Kline is fine as Phoebus, but his character is flat, and doesn't get much real development, and, by extension, does the romance.
The trio of gargoyles quickly ware thin, with Jason Alexander's being the first to hit annoying. I mean, I understand the need for comic relief, but for me, they just clash with the darker tone.
Lastly, the message of the film, one of tolerance is somewhat undermined when the only time we really spend time with the gypsies is the Court of Miracles sequence, where they try to hang our heroes while boasting about their criminal activities. I mean, shouldn't we get a better, more nuanced portrait then one three minute sequence? I mean, this is honestly the only time we see them in their element, so why not use it to show them as kind hearted people who care about Quasimodo? Instead, they mock him, and hang him after a mock trial where they blatantly state he's innocent. Not really giving me reason to sympathize here outside of the fact that Frollo is just such a sick, insane bastard.
And that's why it fails for me. In its attempts to preach a lesson of tolerance, it does little to make the underdogs that Frollo oppresses seem sympathetic. On top of that, for something as complex as this, which tackles racism and lust, it doesn't have the intelligence or the subtly to properly deliver the message. On top of that, its just a story that's too mature for a G rated film, and in watering it down, you loose the impact.
2 out of 5. Frollo and the music are awesome, but the rest is only passable at best, and uncomfortably inappropriate for children at worse.
This is actually my favorite Disney movie. A guilty pleasure, I should say. It is based off my favorite book of all time, and good Lord that music is soul piercing. While yes, it's darker and does have its flaws, that doesn't stop it from being one of my favorite movies of all time.
And yes, to Hell with the gargoyles.
Having read the book, I can say this:
1) The original is a lot darker. Like, a hell of a lot darker. Esmerelda is hanged and killed, Phoebus is a womanizer and fails to rescue her only to immediately move on to another woman, Esmerelda has a mother who was a nun who also gets killed, Quasimodo is deaf and mute and dies of wasting away at Esmerelda's grave, and Frollo's fall from Notre Dame is quite detailed and rather explicit, and the only two characters to really survive do so by basically leaving before the finale.
2) It's also filled with descriptions and historical references all over the place; the structure of Notre Dame alone gets 36 pages of the 460 or so page copy I have. The King of France at the time the book was placed gets a mention, as do many other literary works, all of which add into the story immensely.
3) I'll keep my discussion of it to a minimum, but it might be interesting to note that Djali was not created by Disney for the film but was in the original work by Victor Hugo.
I much prefer the book to the movie. It's long, it's filled to the brim with descriptions and a hell of a lot more intricate and complicated than the Disney movie. But, for what it's worth, "Hellfire" and "The Bells of Notre Dame" are ****ing amazing pieces.
It came out the same year as I was born. Also Avenging-Hobbits could you help me with my web series?
3331058 sorry, but no
Why oh why do you continue to show that the things from my childhood were not as good as I thought they were, Hobbits?
3331326 Okay then thanks for answering my question.
3331497 because i like to see people suffer, silly!
I don't care what ou are saying. Still my most favourite Disney-movie.