I rented the Anthony Quinn version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame with an open mind. I knew I wouldn't like it as much as the Charles Laughton version, but I had no idea I'd wind up fast forwarding it until I couldn't take it anymore. I didn't even finish the movie.First of all, despite the title, Anthony Quinn is hardly in the movie. It should have been called Esmerelda, since Gina Lollobrigida took first billing and an enormous amount of screen time. Secondly, this version of the story doesn't really make sense. Gina starts off being afraid of Tony, thinking he's trying to rape her-even though that's not at all what he tries to do-and immediately after her frightening encounter with a strange man in a dark alley, she flirts with Jean Danet, another strange man who clearly is after her body. Tony only tried to lift her up; Jean hoists her up on his horse and rides off to an inn and pays for a bedroom! Then, when Tony gets punished for attempted kidnapping, she inexplicably gives him water during his torture scene-and when he says, "Thank you, you're kind," she inexplicably flees the scene because he's too repulsive to look at. Then-no, I'm not done-after the famous "Sanctuary!" scene, Gina screams at the sight of him and is actively mean. The third problem was the casting. It just doesn't work to cast a good-looking man as Quasimodo. The audience is always aware of what he looks like underneath the makeup. Tony is a very large man, and he isn't given a proportionally large enough hump on his back; he easily stands up straight. In the Charles Laughton version, he's very small and hunched over-hence the title-and lopes around practically on all fours. Now, the final problem: the acting. You must know by now how much I love Anthony Quinn, but nobody in this movie was any good. The supporting cast sounded like they were dubbed by people at a cold reading, Gina put the emphasis on the wrong syllables so it seemed like she didn't understand what she was saying, and Tony seemed mentally as well as physically impaired. Quasimodo isn't supposed to mentally slow, so it doesn't make any sense that Tony constantly bursts out laughing in inappropriate situations and acts like he's been hit in the head too many times. Please save yourselves and stick to Charles Laughton.

In 1482, in the Feast of Fools in Paris, the deformed bell ringer Quasimodo (Anthony Quinn) is elected the King of Fools. After the party, the evil alchemist Master Claude Frollo (Alain Cuny), who has a repressed lust for the kind gypsy dancer Esmeralda (Gina Lollobrigida), orders his servant Quasimodo to abduct the beautiful youngster. However, she is rescued by Captain Phoebus (Jean Danet) and Quasimodo is sentenced to be whipped in the square of Notre Dame and Esmeralda gives water to him. Later Esmeralda goes with Captain Phoebus to a room in an inn to spend a night of love together. However, Frollo is stalking her and uses her stiletto to stab Phoebus on his back, and Esmeralda takes the blame and is sentenced to be hanged. But Quasimodo brings Esmeralda to the sanctuary of Notre Dame and expresses his love for the gypsy."The Hunchback of Notre Dame" is one of the cruelest romances of the literature and cinema history in a dark age in French history. In this version of this sad tale of injustice, Anthony Quinn is awesome with a memorable performance and Gina Lollobrigida is perfect in the role of the seductive gypsy. My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): "O Corcunda de Notre Dame" ("The Hunchback of Notre Dame")

It's no wonder that people who have been introduced to the story of "the Hunchback of Notre Dame" by big movie versions, like the 1939 classic or 1996 Disney animation, don't often know what really happens in Victor Hugo's classic book "Notre Dame de Paris". I have seen totally six different movie version of the story, and although none of them is completely bad, only one has actually been really accurate to the events of the book. Although I will always say that the 1939 Hollywood version is the absolute best, this 1956 French/Italian film is closest to the book, as far as plot is concerned. Esmeralda does not fall in love with Gringoire, it's Claude Frollo and not his brother Jehan who lusts after Esmeralda and in the end almost all the main characters die. Yet, in a strange way, it does make some subtle differences also. Esmeralda is not young and innocent girl unaware of the reactions she causes in men. This Esmeralda is more mature, yet even she can't help but fall under Phoebus' charm. Claude Frollo is not an archdeacon, filmmakers probably still afraid of making a priest the villain. Instead he is an alchemist who has lived in the tower of Notre Dame almost his whole life. This is kind of strange since it's said in the film "he is in disgrace with the church". It also diminishes bit of the conflict that happens in him when he becomes obsessed of Esmeralda. Still, I'm sure fans of Hugo can enjoy this version, if they are ready to forgive the few artistic liberties. For a film made in Europe that obviously doesn't have the big budget Hollywood could use, the sets of Notre Dame's cathedral and the 15'Th century Paris are surprisingly well done. Although the low budget does make some scenes suffer, like Quasimodo' "Sanctuary! Sanctuary!"- scene, Jean Delannoy's direction keeps the story going and Georges Auric's music is beautiful to listen to. However some of the English dub does bother in the film that really should have been released in French.The Italian actress Gina Lollobrigida, ones called "the Most Beautiful Woman in the World", plays the more mature and sensual Esmeralda, and she makes it very clear why half the Paris is drooling after her. I was surprised to see how little makeup Anthony Quinn wears as Quasimodo, yet he completely convinces that this person has been seen as a freak his whole life. His performance is very physical, making Quasimodo seem like a beast who tries to be human, instead of Charles Laughton's poetic soul. Alain Cuny is bit too brooding as Frollo, but he does look up to part. Still, I feel screenplay didn't give him enough chances to fully explore the role. Jean Danet as Phoebus is not really anything but a jerk full of himself, but since that's how I see Phoebus I have nothing against him. Philippe Clay seems nothing like the Clopin I pictured from the book, yet there's something about his rather humorous performance that I like. Jean Tissier also makes a very subtle and slimy performance as King Louis XI, who in previous 1939 film was portrayed as a rather good guy. Robert Hirsch as Gringoire is not memorable and Maurice Sarfati as Jehan is simply annoying. Although the 1956 film is neither the best nor the finest version of the story, it does come closest to the book than any other film I've seen and is definitely worth watching. It's not a bad film, yet it could have been far better also.EDIT: I recently saw original French speaking version of this film. I recommend seeing that one. Not only because they speak French so you don't have to bare the horrible English dub, but it also has scenes that were deleted from English cut and Alain Cuny shows a lot more torment and conflict as Frollo.

This version of Victor Hugo's TRAGIC tale of the poor deaf bell and deformed bell ringer's love for a kind and virginal gypsy is brought to life yet again. This adaptation suffers from poor acting and bad dubbing while keeping painfully faithful to the book. Now, don't get me wrong, I wish MORE adaptations of Notre Dame de Paris were closer to the book... but it's a shame a shabby film like this is the only one that even touches the book... Gina Lollabrigida (sp?) tries her darndest to capture the allure of the little dancing gypsy girl; she fails utterly... not saying she isn't sexy, but the allurement of Esmerelda is her innocence and youth (she was 16). Gina is far from being either innocent or 16; her whole performance cried "trollip". Antony Quinn (the retarded acting hunchback) is put on the back burner as Gina struts her stuff the whole movie. The guy who played the poet also contributed to the down fall of this movie. This film also has its own way of destroying my favorite scenes in all the other films. My favorite scene of all time is the rescue of Esmerelda from the gallows. In this version, there is no dramatic music, or near death escape, nor a dramatic swing from the bell tower. Esmerelda wasn't even at the gallows... she is knelling before the cathedral while the hunchback slides down a rope, clumsily swoops her up and carried her inside.SPOILER! Now the one area that this film succeeds is the ending... In the novel, Esmerelda is captured and hanged as the hunchback watches from the bell tower... Well, in this version she is shot, but the guards take her body to the gallows anyway. I think the fact that this film used the original ending as opposed to a happy ending was a clever idea and it is the only thing that saves it in my opinion.