The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

I prefer the Disney version, but this one is pretty solid too. While it works with a big book, the storytelling is fluid and easy to follow, in spite of the short time of the film. The character designs are rather dull, but the backgrounds are fairly detailed and the animation looks fluid. The characters themselves are not particularly complex, but are effective. Quasimodo and Esmeralda are sympathetic, and the rest do their work.The writing avoids being childish or hyper-complex, focusing well in the story and having a few moving lines. My complaint is that it lacks a bit more of emotion and impact. The voice acting is solid. The opening sequence and the incidental score are awesome and successful.In conclusion, this is a legitimately good work. A shame I cannot say the same about a few animated adaptations that are mediocre at best.

Initially I wasn't sure whether an adaptation of Victor Hugo's classic novel would work in 52 or so minutes. I needn't have worried though, as Burbank's Hunchback of Notre Dame is one of my favourites of theirs alongside Wind in the Willows and Peter Pan. Is it the best version? Possibly not, the 1939 Charles Laughton film is incredibly well made and moves me to tears every time I see it. But of the three animated versions seen, I believe also there is one from either Golden Films or Burbank Animation Studios, it is for me second to Disney's(which is not perfect but I personally love it for the animation, music, characters and how much it moved and thrilled me) and much better than Jetlag's(not bad as such but one of their weakest efforts overall). What I love about this version is many things. In all honesty I wasn't expecting much from the animation quality, the cover was suggestive of a rather sketchy story-book-like style, but I was surprised. There is a lot of detail in the backgrounds, the dark yet more elegant than usual visual style is very fitting with the story's mood and the characters right from the grotesque yet immediately identifiable Quasimodo to the beautiful, both in character and how she's drawn, Esmeralda. The music lacks the ambitious and almost operatic scale that Disney has, but on its own it is very impressive in this regard, beautifully and subtly orchestrated while with some evocative, haunting parts. The writing is not childish or over-complicated, Quasimodo's exchange to Esmeralda in the cathedral after he rescues her is most moving, and the story is compelling and focused in tone(doing all that while also being perhaps the closest in spirit to the book). The characters are memorable, Frollo is not as complex as his novelistic counterpart but hardly stereotypical either, Esmeralda I have always found an improvement on screen than the rather naive and flat character in the book and Quasimodo is as he should be poignant despite his appearance. You do feel sorry for Gringoire, Phoebus is not as big a jerk as he is in the book and Clopin is menacing and darkly humorous. The voice acting is good, Ron Haddrick being brilliant as Frollo. All in all, highly recommended as one of Burbank's best. 9/10 Bethany Cox

Victor Hugo's story of Quasimodo is a true classic. Pity that I never read it, nor watched any of the many film adaptations.. until this one. So pardon me for not comparing - except with the data on Wikipedia, and I must say this animation seems to convey much of the original story (of course leaving out the heavy stuff of sex and killing). But the atmosphere (dramatic music, the Paris background, especially Notre Dame) appeared aptly rendered to me, and the persons, notably Esmeralda, drawn in a serious (non-cartoonish) style. The Dutch-distributed DVD I bought for €1 had German and French dubs, and of course I preferred the latter as more fitting, even though I did not understand every word.Given that this is rated "age 0 and above" in Germany, I found it worth watching even at 52 years old :) Much more convincing than Jekyll & Hyde from the same Australian studio ("Burbank" - quite a nod to Disney!), which was made kid-directed by adding the frame of grandmother and child. At least for delivering "illustrated classics", Burbank seems to do good jobs, and I'll buy more of their works when I see them in the bargain bin.