This early version of the legendary story is (so far) the oldest film I've ever seen. Personally, I find it fascinating to purchase movies made before my grandparents were even born. The entire concept of cinema as a form of art is scarcely out of the egg it all still looks so grotesque. I did learn something from this film…these ancient milestones aren't necessarily brilliant but impressive beyond belief. The Hunchback of the Notre Dame often gets referred to as one of the first ‘horror' classics but much more than that, it's a historical spectacle with massive sets and groundbreaking elements. The actual plot is so easy to summarize but you get so much more than that! Like a very detailed and imaginative portrait of Paris in the 15th century, the variety of social classes and an idea of medieval interpretation of the law. At some times in this film, you almost get the idea Quasimodo and Esmeralda are just second-class puppets in what is primarily a historical and educating documentary. Magnificent without a single doubt…but time-consuming and ponderous to sit through…Although, I have to say I hunt down the extended version, furnished with a stained musical track and lasting 140 minutes.

The actual plot and the presentation of Quasimodo's personality is still unparalleled and touching beyond comparison. Lon Chaney is simply outstanding as the unworldly and deformed ‘freak' who's willing to sacrifice his life unconditionally to rescue the girl who once treated him in a human way. He might be hideous, but he's the only who's pure, honest and free of prejudices. Lon Chaney's facial make-up and hunch are early horror triumphs. Along with his natural charismatic appearance, the Quasimodo portrayal provided Chaney with the immortal status of horror-cinema icon. Even though he already starred in over a hundred films before The Hunchback, he'll always be remembered starting from this point of his career. Like none other actor, Chaney gave a face to Quasimodo and that is not exaggerated! Multiple other well-respected actors gave image to Quasimodo after Chaney (like Charles Laughton, Anthony Quinn and Anthony Hopkins) but only he will truly be remembered for it. Same goes for Lon's personification of Erik in `Phantom of the Opera' which is his greatest achievement in cinema along with Hunchback.

The Hunchback of the Notre Dame is over eighty (80!) years old now and it still stands as one of the most overwhelming heavyweights in cinema ever. Some of the sequences shown here are pure mythical inheritance. Like Chaney acrobatic movements while tolling the massive bells…or his descent off the Notre Dame's walls! Still, this film might not be for all tastes as it's too bombastic all together and Woresly's direction is kind of rough and ponderous. He surely put too much energy in it, as it was the most ambitious project of his career. Therefore, it's hard to stay focused continuously as the shots of Medieval Parisian streets seem to be endless

It's hard to rate this film. Much of this is because the film has been floating around for years and is available in many forms--some longer and some significantly shorter. I have a videotape version that only runs about 90 minutes and it lacks any musical score. The version I just saw on TCM lasted almost two hours and had a very good musical score by Robert Israel. However, despite the excellent score he recently wrote for the film, the print itself was in pretty poor shape--looking like it needed further restoration. The review I am giving is for this longer version with music.

The film was exceptional from a technical standpoint. There were huge numbers of extras, very impressive sets that make you think it was really filmed in Paris and the acting was very good. Not surprisingly, Lon Chaney was exceptional and his makeup very convincing. However, despite the technical merit, I still found myself preferring his PHANTOM OF THE OPERA--it was a more interesting story and has been completely restored, so it is a visual treat--unlike HUNCHBACK. Also, the story itself never seemed super-compelling. A good chance I feel this way is that I have seen at least five different versions of the story and it just feels a bit old. So I really can't blame THIS film--it's more a case of "burnout". Still, it's an amazing film and not to be missed by silent movie fans.

If I were to say what my favourite versions were, they are the 1939 film with Charles Laughton and the 1996 Disney version. Neither are the most faithful to the book but I found myself to be the most engaged and most moved by them. This 1923 film is very good though. I did think some of the more secondary roles were rather stock here, especially Phoebus and Jehan, but still found the actors adequate. For its time and even now the film is very well made with beautiful(if not quite as Gothic of 1939) cinematography and make-up. The music score is also very good, atmospheric and often haunting, and the story is compelling too. I did find the ending to be of an anti-climax somewhat though, it is much more moving and convincing dramatically in the book and in other versions. The performances are very good on the whole, with Lon Chaney stealing the show as a grotesque and poignant Quasimodo, and Patsy Ann Miller as a beautiful and understated(if perhaps not quite sexy enough) Esmeralda and Ernest Torrance as Clopin faring best in support. All in all, recommended for especially how it was made and for Chaney. 8/10 Bethany Cox