The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923)

Such a frustrating disappointment

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

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

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Although many film critics might not characterize The Hunchback of Notre Dame as a horror film as a whole. There is a certain appeal to many early horror film enthusiasts since it stars one of the genres most famous silent actors, Lon Chaney. Chaney's appearance had to be unsettling to many film-goers in the early 1920's, in which he had realistic looking deformities and used psychotic mannerisms to portray the lead character. Along with Chaney, the additional cast members did a really good job at playing their parts. Patsy Ruth Miller, who played the desired Esmeralda, had good screen presence and really sold that ridiculous dance that was always called upon her by the other characters. Perhaps the best performances were that of the film's villains, Ernest Torrence as Clopin, and Brandon Hurst as Jehan. Torrence really showed Clopin's desperateness effectively and Hurst played a great cunning and evil Jehan.The pace of the story was also another great component of the film. The run-time is a bit long for my liking for a silent film but there never was a bad scene. There could have been some better use of dialogue and less description in spots were reading is involved but the scenes were not overly or under-used. The location props and scenery was done pretty well in itself too, looking like the actual Notre Dame church and yard. The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a silent classic that does drag in spots but is definitely worth one view.

this is first off a very sad movie, the battle that Quasimodo faces within when he falls for Esmerelda, there 's lot's to this movie , you have revolt revenge and of course love. Lon Chaney did a remarkable job it's hard to say which of his performances are his greatest because I really love them all,, it seems in this movie there are so many characters running around constantly, I don't know how many extras were used in the making of this film but it appears to be a lot. I love Quasimodo's trademark of ringing the bell. this film has all of the old world classic stuff that you want to see, sort of the medieval time period ,, kings queens and stuff like that, the Cathedral of Notre Dame is much like a character in this movie,, I would definitely recommend this to anyone who is a fan of great early silent movies.

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.