Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Freaktana A Major Disappointment

Usamah Harvey The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Donald Seymour This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Hitchcoc Sad to know that as Lon Chaney crossed over into sound film, he was already dying. The Man of a Thousand Faces went out with a really decent remake of a silent film he had starred in five years previously. Chaney again plays Echo, the leader of a group of minor felons, whose petty crimes against clients don't bring the big guns after them. Until, of course, murder of a wealthy man takes place. The fact that there are all these people (one of them clueless) makes it hard to keep them under control. And, then, having a gorilla around could complicate away situation. The thing most memorable for me is the courtroom scene. I found it superior to the silent one (but that may not be fair because sound really gives us more flexibility). Good acting and wonderful characters.

preppy-3 I never saw the 1925 silent so I won't compare them. A trio of circus performers--a ventriloquist (Lon Chaney), a midget (Harry Earles) and a strongman (Ivan Linow) leave the circus and, along with beautiful Rosie (Lila Lee), turn to crime to get rich. But not everything turns out like they hoped.Lon Chaney's first talking film and, sadly, his last film. He died of cancer shortly after this was completed. Basically he's the whole show here. He was always a good actor who could change his appearance in incredible ways, but this movie showed he could change his voice too. He plays a old woman quite convincingly in this one. He overacts in all his roles but in a fun manner (like Vincent Price). The rest of the actors are just OK with Earles being completely incomprehensible! It's not his fault--early sound recording was never good. The plot moves quick but it's full of highly unlikely events. Wait till you see the animal Chaney gets! Still it's a good movie and worth seeing just to see Chaney in his only speaking--and last--movie.

MartinHafer I sure wish I could see both the 1925 and the 1930 version one after the other to compare them. I did see both--but over a year apart. Oddly, while most people seem to feel that the earlier version is the better of the two, I can't help but think that maybe the latter on is better--but again, seeing them together could help me decide if perhaps my recollection is incorrect. Considering that the first was directed by Tod Browning, I sure would think it would be the better of the two, but I just don't remember being as bowled over by it.Both versions of THE UNHOLY THREE are very, very similar. The plot is very similar and in many cases they match scene for scene. Plus, two of the three Unholies are the same actors (Lon Chaney and Harry Earles). Now I am going to recommend something that really will enhance your appreciation of the 1930 version. As I am hard of hearing, I usually have the closed captions turned on and so when the heavily accented Earles spoke, I could tell exactly what he was saying. But being a midget with a high-pitched voice and German, I know even people with 100% normal hearing would struggle to understand all his lines. Audiences of 1930 must have felt the same way, though I am glad they still had him in the movie because he was such a malevolent little creature! I especially like how the ending was changed a bit--having Earles deliberately let the gorilla out instead of it just escaping. This diminutive man made for one of the more evil characters in film history.I was particularly impressed with Lon Chaney in this film. While he was afflicted with lung cancer while he made the film, you can't tell by his performance and his voice was less affected than you might assume by the illness. His incredibly craggy and rather ugly face actually suited the character perfectly and despite having a reputation as a master of pantomime, you can see that had he lived he could have easily been a huge talking pictures star.The plot is pretty much as the original, so I am not going to repeat it. Instead, there were a few changes. First, the gorilla is obviously a guy in a gorilla suit. This isn't as realistic as the 1925 ape, but for a fake ape, it's better than most. Plus I guess you can't blame them for not using a real gorilla--that might have proved to be a bit messy. Also, while the ending still pulls its punches a bit (you don't get to see the strong man killed--just everything leading up to it), it is pretty sick to watch Earles (whose head is off camera) being strangled to death! Pretty potent for 1930, though not super-surprising considering the Production Code had not yet been strengthened.Overall, the film is exciting, well-paced and is one of the better scary films of the age. Well worth seeing and very little I would have changed in the story.

Neil Doyle LON CHANEY delivers an interesting performance (especially when posing as a kindly old woman), but not even the great Chaney can overcome all the defects in this remake of the 1925 silent.For starters, the performances around him include two extremely bad examples of early screen acting--from awkward Lila Lee and a young man who would later turn his talent to directing rather than acting--Elliot Nugent. Nugent has the hapless role of an innocent, naive young man and plays it in hopelessly nerd style--a foretaste, perhaps, of his Broadway role as the timid professor in THE MALE ANIMAL. Anyway, his is the weakest performance in the film with Lila not far behind.The tale itself is interesting enough to hold the attention--and especially chilling is the malice (pure evil) displayed by Harry Earle as the malevolent midget. Unfortunately, most of his dialogue is unintelligible due to his German accent, something director Jack Conway should have noted.Only real satisfaction is watching Lon Chaney in one of his last roles. He is excellent and makes it painful to realize he was fighting throat cancer while filming was underway. A better script, production values, and tighter direction by Conway would have worked wonders to make this tale more chilling and believable. Summing up: At best, it is an interesting example of Chaney's considerable talent despite the primitive acting technique displayed by Lila Lee and Elliot Nugent. Nugent's performance makes one grateful he switched to directing later in his career, with more satisfying results.