Depending on how you look at it this is either the best "Hunchback" or the worst; for my money Lon Chaney will always be the Quasimodo for me but before I discount this version too much, I'll review its good points.
1) It does remain faithful to Hugo's novel; 2) We get to see Quasimodo in color.
Now the bad points:
1) Quinn acts as though he'd rather be anywhere than making this movie; 2) The dubbing is terrible in some spots; 3) Quasimodo doesn't appear to be hunchbacked; 4) Esmeralda is more sex pot than innocent 16 year old; 5) The musical score leave a lot to be desired.
You've got to wonder about Quinn's patience in the make-up chair. His incarnation of Quasimodo isn't really that ugly and does not even come close to the description given by Hugo in his novel. In fact, Lon Chaney and Anthony Hopkins are the only actors that came close to Hugo's description. I kinda thought Quinn's incarnation of Quasimodo resembled a punch drunk boxer --- his Quasimodo just appeared dumb. Beyond Quasimodo and Esmeralda the other characters just never developed.
This movie could have been good but everyone from the director to the producers to the actors dropped the ball.
Watch this one if it comes on TV but save your money for the Laughton, Chaney or Hopkins version.
Here's how I rank the versions of the "Hunchback"
1. Chaney (The Master!) 2. Hopkins (Make-up job superb - just like Hugo described him!) 3. Laughton (Brilliant acting job - most powerful flogging scene.) 4. Quinn (It's in color.) 5. Patinkin (This ranking is not necessarily a knock on Patinkin's Quasimodo, it's a knock on the production & writing which does not follow Hugo's novel at all; the sequence of events is all out of order.) 6. Clarke (A BBC Turkey. Shot on video tape with a lower than low budget. I got the feeling I was watching some drama students put on a play their friend recorded.)
1) It does remain faithful to Hugo's novel; 2) We get to see Quasimodo in color.
Now the bad points:
1) Quinn acts as though he'd rather be anywhere than making this movie; 2) The dubbing is terrible in some spots; 3) Quasimodo doesn't appear to be hunchbacked; 4) Esmeralda is more sex pot than innocent 16 year old; 5) The musical score leave a lot to be desired.
You've got to wonder about Quinn's patience in the make-up chair. His incarnation of Quasimodo isn't really that ugly and does not even come close to the description given by Hugo in his novel. In fact, Lon Chaney and Anthony Hopkins are the only actors that came close to Hugo's description. I kinda thought Quinn's incarnation of Quasimodo resembled a punch drunk boxer --- his Quasimodo just appeared dumb. Beyond Quasimodo and Esmeralda the other characters just never developed.
This movie could have been good but everyone from the director to the producers to the actors dropped the ball.
Watch this one if it comes on TV but save your money for the Laughton, Chaney or Hopkins version.
Here's how I rank the versions of the "Hunchback"
1. Chaney (The Master!) 2. Hopkins (Make-up job superb - just like Hugo described him!) 3. Laughton (Brilliant acting job - most powerful flogging scene.) 4. Quinn (It's in color.) 5. Patinkin (This ranking is not necessarily a knock on Patinkin's Quasimodo, it's a knock on the production & writing which does not follow Hugo's novel at all; the sequence of events is all out of order.) 6. Clarke (A BBC Turkey. Shot on video tape with a lower than low budget. I got the feeling I was watching some drama students put on a play their friend recorded.)