Oh I'm not referring to the thematic side of things, but rather film language/technique. That's an entirely different area of study. The most obvious example would probably be when a boom mic slips into a shot; that is just objectively bad filmmaking, haha. That is something you SHOULD have re-shot, but you were inattentive and/or lazy. Or if the relationship between shots is inconsistent - for instance, if a character is situated in one spot and we cut too quickly to a new stance or position. Too much time and space has been covered in the length of just a few frames. Either the director crossed the axis of action when shooting, or the editor got sloppy. This is also in the vein of continuity errors, like having a character holding a pen in one shot, and in the next, it's suddenly gone. This kind of stuff is super jarring to the audience and only takes away from their immersion in the story; it also suggests a lack of effort/interest on the part of the filmmakers, so yeah, just objectively poor craftsmanship. Then there are the technical aspects that directly influence the subjective thematic content. Like scene-to-scene editing (and the writing in the first place. IT'S NOT ALWAYS THE EDITOR'S FAULT YOU GUYSSS. Although I'm also a writer so what am I even doing. Let's just always blame the producers for everything, sound good?) If a scene doesn't further the plot in any way *OR* add substance to the themes/motifs, it's pretty much unnecessary, and it's probably just going to slow down the pacing, which is also distracting to the audience. And things like cinematography/camera angles are hugely important for expressing the emotions and tone of a scene. For example, high-angle shots (wherein the camera is positioned above) usually convey a sense of vulnerability by rendering a character small in the frame. In Hunchback, you can see this technique being thoughtfully implemented in the scenes of Frollo being judged by the "eyes of Notre Dame," as well as in Hellfire, when he pleads to God, the Virgin Mary, and the ominous red-hooded figures. (Conversely, both these hooded figures and the "eyes" are all shot from low angles, so that they tower over him.) This is especially pointed and clearly deliberate, since these are the scenes where Frollo's mask of power/control briefly slips, and we see the true insecurity and vulnerability beneath. (Holy doody, how am I just NOW noticing the coffin shape over him??? That is so freakin' cool.) So this type of angle is probably going to be less effective if, say, you're shooting God Himself (I don't think there were any high-angle shots of Morgan Freeman in Bruce Almighty, haha), or Frollo when he's dominating others. He's almost exclusively shot from low angles in these scenes, so that he's "looking down" on the other characters (and the audience.) There is of course an element of subjectivity to this method, since it concerns the emotional reaction of your audience. But it's a pretty safe bet that most viewers will at least *subconsciously* pick up on this and be affected by it, especially since it's been around since the beginning of cinema, so most people are (for lack of a better word) "programmed" to react a certain way. It's therefore an objective frame of reference that is intentionally utilized by most filmmakers (and most film critics/academics.) It's effective enough that it's actually one of the first things they teach you in film school. TL;DR even though this particular discussion has focused primarily on the thematic content of the film, there is indeed a LOT about Hunchback's filmmaking that is just patently skillful, and displays talent/competency/thoughtfulness on behalf of the filmmakers.