Hunchback's story revolves around a beautiful gypsy dancer, Esmeralda (Patsy Ruth Miller) and the men in the life. Esmeralda's possessive guardian is Clopin, King of the Beggars (Ernest Torrence). He is willing to barter her to advance his interests and those of his impoverished followers. She loves and is loved in turn by Phoebus de Chateaupers (Norman Kerry) a cavalier of King Louis XI (Tully Marshall). Esmeralda is also the obsessive object of Jehan (Brandon Hurst) the villainous brother of Dom Claudio (Nigel De Brulier) the cathedral's saintly Archdeacon. And she is adored by Quasimodo, the grotesque bellringer of Notre Dame for her kindness to him after an unjust flogging. During a tender moment between the dancer and the soldier, the jealous Jehan stabs Phoebus. Esmeralda is accused of the crime, tortured and sentenced to hang. Workmen from the cathedral stop laboring to enjoy her public execution, the following day, while Quasimodo watches in horror.
In fifteenth century Paris, the brother of the archdeacon plots with the gypsy king to foment a peasant revolt. Meanwhile, a freakish hunchback falls in love with the gypsy queen. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Hugo G (au) wrote: 4.5/10The ending of this movie was actually better and more intriguing than the movie itself. In the end it showed more promise and interesting choices that it could've benefited from them if used since the beginning. It's almost as if it could've been a better from starting from the beginning, ironically. Aside from al of that, the performances were average for the most part, although at least it had some recognizable actors. But overall, it wasn't scary nor with a better than average quality, but it had a good idea that wasn't executed very well.~August 15, 2015~
Matthew S (de) wrote: Calvin Reeder's movie is actually a number of stolen disturbing cinematic cliches stitched together to form a mess of confused horror. But no one can deny that Reeder doesn't manage to create some oddly artistic and semi-comedic creepiness from beginning to end. It is quite flawed, but fans of trippy horror movies will be entertained. This film along with his short features offers an interesting glimpse into an experimental horror filmmaker finding his own voice.
Russell P (de) wrote: Great movie, despite the reviews.
Tim M (nl) wrote: OK. Oldman is great - OTT as usual
Katherine R (us) wrote: I want to add this movie to my own collections.
Ann W (ru) wrote: This is MORE than a movie!
Danny T (ru) wrote: In the Parisian countryside, a donkey named Balthazar is passed between owners, only one of which -- a young girl -- treats him kindly. This French New Wave masterpiece is stylistically restrained and thematically boundless. A devastating tragedy of human indifference, Bresson's incomparable film is furthermore an extraordinarily rich Christian allegory.
Carlos B (fr) wrote: Action film by 80's star Dolph Lundgren. The plot itself has been done over and over yet this film will bring a smile to any(80's)fan of mindless "let's blow up stuff and kill a ton of extras from a foreign country" type of fan. The movie being released in the 90's might had come a little to late,but I gotta say this is one of those films that right now are so bad,they're good! Lundgren acting was hilarious. Midly recommended...if you're into this type of films!
Shawn W (br) wrote: Weakest entry as more comedy added to the mix and new arrival Renee Russo handles much of the fighting. A former cop is now the most wanted man by the force. Murtaugh is just a week from retirment but faces more high risk gun battles in that time frame than I could count. It's amazing he's still alive with these kinds of hazards on the job.
Tyler E (br) wrote: AWESOME, such a good ending too
Jorel D (mx) wrote: There are a lot of boxing movies out there... and then there is The Challenger. Strategy, endurance, technique.
Guillaume H (us) wrote: Not as bad as they say it is. its not a drag and remains mostly intriguing, if a bit flat sometimes. Still, great cast and I had fun with it, but then the ending... ok storywise, why not, but in terms of direction... lets just say its flawed. So its not a major failure like some worst things, just an oddity.
Alec B (ag) wrote: The message is simple, but the direction, performances, and screenplay crackle with a powerful energy . . . the film doesn't just ask for decency and right action, it demands it.
Stephen C (ag) wrote: One of the best films of the 70s and i feel it stands as one of Arthur Penns greatest works. Gene Hackman is simply brilliant as Harry Mosby an ex pro football player turned private eye who is assinged to find a missing girl for a boozy ex actress. The trouble is Harrys own private life is a total mess,as his wife is cheating on him . Penn and writer Alan Sharp weave a cracking tale as Mosby tries to piece together a seemingly simple mystery while trying to pick up the pieces of his marriage. Penns films always had a thinking cap on them and this one is no exception as Harry is sucked into a mystery that he ulitimatley has no control over and just like that other 70s masterpiece Chinatown the ending is open ended and down beat. This deserves to stand along side Chinatown as a film that engages the brain and thrills in all the right places
Jon H (nl) wrote: This could possibly be the worst movie I have ever seen. It reminds me of the kind of video masturbation a first year film student might "produce". Ben Affleck must have rushed to the bank to deposit his check knowing what a stinker he was involved in. It is almost as if the script was lost on the first day of shooting and they decided to go ahead and make a movie anyway. For the first time in my life I actually think I am owed a refund for wasting my time on this abomination. Don't waste your time or money.