The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923)

What a waste of my time!!!

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Wallace Worsley is not a director who usually figures in any lists of Hollywood masters. In fact, Chaney himself (with whom Worsley worked on no less than five pictures-this is the last of them) once described Worsley as little more than "good as any of the second-raters or better." Well Hunchback is certainly better. A whole lot better! A staggeringly spectacular production, its huge crowds and sets are most artistically angled and photographed. If Wallace Worsley was responsible for these consistently pleasing arrangements of light and color, he is indeed a neglected master. Ironically, it was due to the fact that he had worked successfully with Chaney at other studios that Worsley was hired in the first place, whereas Chaney's own preference was for Frank Borzage. Although Hunchback was a rousing success, Worsley was not offered any more work at Universal. In fact, the studio's publicity department regarded Worsley as such a has-been, they didn't even bother to spell his name correctly on the elaborately colorful posters prepared for the film's general release. (They managed to get Lon Chaney's name right though). In 1924, Worsley followed his Hunchback by directing a minor William Farnum/Lois Wilson vehicle, The Man Who Fights Alone, for Paramount. After that little stint, Paramount's publicity manager, B.P. Schulberg-who had Clara Bow under personal contract, plus his own personal production company(!)-releasing through Paramount of course-hired Worsley for The Shadow of the Law, a no-frills quickie that had only two claims to fame: It starred Miss Bow and was photographed by Ray June. And then came Worsley's final movie, appropriately titled The Power of Silence (1928), an out-of-date Belle Bennett silent from Tiffany-Stahl of Poverty Row. In addition to his creative visual artistry, Wallace Worsley was also adept at drawing fine performances from his players. Chaney is most effective, Miss Miller utterly charming; while Ernest Torrence, Raymond Hatton and Brandon Hurst almost steal the movie. Tully Marshall would certainly figure on this list too if his role were larger. The only weak spots are Nigel de Brulier, who is mostly quite credible but inclined to overdo the dramatics at times, and Norman Kerry who yet makes his hero considerably less abysmal here than his later effort in Phantom of the Opera. However it is not the actors, or even Mr Chaney, who constantly engage our attention. It is the overwhelming sets, filled with merry-making and murderous crowds-the whole medieval milieu in fact that Wallace Worsley brings so forcefully and dramatically to life. AVAILABLE on DVD through Image in a beautifully tinted 117-minute print, well-worn in places but always admirably sharp.

This early adaptation of The Hunchback of Notre Dame shares much in common with Universal's later film, The Phantom of the Opera: the sets are great and Lon Chaney is great, but everything else is subpar, including the pedestrian direction of Wallace Worsely.Lon Chaney never gave a bad performance and his performance as Quasimodo was one of his finest moments, both as an actor and as a make-up artist. His is the only fully realized performance in the film and unfortunately, he gets little screen time in comparison to the bloodless love affair between Esmeralda and Phoebus, played by Patsy Ruth Miller and Norman Kerry. Miller does pretty well, though Kerry is pallid and underwhelming, just as he was opposite Chaney in Phantom and The Unknown.I'm not too sure why this is often classified as a horror picture, though it does have its creepy moments, such as Quasimodo stalking Esmeralda at night, intent on kidnapping her for his lecherous master.Overall, this is an alright movie, but nothing compared to the 1939 version, which has more depth and feels more iconic.

With the exception of the 1996 Disney version this is the most famous film adaptation of the 1831 novel of the same name by Victor Hugo. The film is about a deaf, half-blind, and deformed man named Quasimodo who is the bell ringer at the church of Notre Dame in Paris. The movie states that it takes place ten years before Columbus discovered America which would place the film at 1482. Now there is also a beautiful gypsy by the name of Esmeralda who has been adopted by Clopin, the king of the beggars. Esmeralda falls in love with the Captain of the Guard, Phoebus de Chateaupers. However, Clopin disagrees with the crossing of the two classes and starts an uprising plus Claude Frollo (the Archdeacon at Notre Dame) attempts to seduce Esmeralda. The story is overall pretty interesting and it follows the novel much closer than the majority of movie adaptations out there although there are still a few key differences.The acting in this picture is a mixed bag with Lon Chaney stealing the show as Quasimodo. He is amazing and truly looks like he could be a deformed person in that position. Chaney especially does a good job at getting his emotions across without the use of spoken dialogue. Patsy Ruth Miller does an above average job as Esmeralda but with the high budget of this film I expected some better acting with her character. Most of the remaining actors do a pretty good job in their roles but nothing spectacular.When it comes down to the technical aspects of the film it is very impressive for 1923. All of the sets are grand in scope and truly set the time period and location perfectly. Lon Chaney's make up is extraordinarily good with him doing his own makeup. Also the music is very good and a lot of it goes along with the film better than most silent film scores. Where sound effects are used they are used excellently as well.So overall there aren't any major problems with this film but there are some flaws. The story is pretty good but not anything amazing. As for the acting you have Lon Chaney who does a spectacular job while the rest of the cast is merely good but nothing great. Special effects and music are really good in this movie though and they all work very well for the time. In conclusion the movie is flawed but does enough right to make it worth watching so give it a try especially if you enjoyed the novel. Score: 8/10

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.