Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

If anyone doubted that Lon Chaney could make the transition from silent to talkies, they needn't have worried. In his only talkie, Chaney displayed a speaking voice that perfectly matched his physical appearance."The Unholy Three" is a re-make of Chaney's 1925 film of the same name. It follows the same story line of three frustrated side show performers and one pick-pocket carrying out a series of robberies under the cover of a "Bird Store". Echo (Chaney), Tweedledee a baby faced midget (Harry Earles who repeats his role) and Hercules (Ivan Linov) form an alliance -- "The Unholy Three". Rosie (Lila Lee) is a thinly disguised street walker who picks pockets and has an "arrangement" with Echo.Echo, disguised as Grandma O'Grady uses his skills as a ventriloquist to dupe rich clients into buying a "talking parrot". When the customer complains, Grandma and her "Grandson" go to the client's home. While Grandma again convinces the client that they have a talking parrot, "baby" cases the joint for a robbery.Meanwhile Rosie strikes up a relationship with Harry the store's clerk much to the chagrin of Echo. On Christmas Eve, the three are planning another robbery but Echo becomes jealous of Rosie's romance and remains behind. The giant and the midget carry on and the client winds up dead. The trio then plans to pin the crime on hapless Harry to the dismay of Rosie.Harry is arrested and Rosie is swept off with the "three" to a remote cabin. Meanwhile Harry goes to trial. Rosie pleads with Echo to intervene promising to remain with him if he does. Then Things get interesting and....................................Chaney, who could have also been called "the man of a thousand voices" had he lived, uses his voice as the grandma, Echo, Echo's dummy and the parrot to great effect. He is very convincing as the old lady and it's interesting to see his transformation to the gruff Echo as soon as he takes off the wig. Harry Earles was easier to understand with sub-titles. Lila Lee is quite good as Rosie as she at first tries to discourage Harry from loving her. The best that can be said about Ivan Linov is that he was no Victor McLaglan (in the 1925 version).The ending is somewhat different from the silent version. In this version Grandma takes the stand in court whereas in the silent Echo does so. There is an interesting "unmasking" scene in the court room that might remind Chaney fans of a similar scene in "The Phantom of the Opera" (1925).Chaney might have gone on to bigger and better things in talkies but for his untimely death. He was rumored as being considered by Universal for their upcoming "Frankenstein" and "Dracula" films.There is a poignant moment in the final scene where Chaney is standing on a train pulling away, seemingly is waving good bye to his fans. There will never be another Lon Chaney.

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.

Unholy Three, The (1930) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Pretty much a scene for scene remake of the 1925 film but this one here is in sound. Lon Chaney and Harry Earles return to repeat their roles from the original film. There really isn't anything better about this film but it does work fine on its own. The film moves at a faster pace but I see this as a negative thing because the film never really lets any tension build up. The poor recording equipment of the time makes it rather hard to understand some of the stuff Earles is saying. Chaney is very good in his final film role and his only sound film. The studio decided to turn the Man of a 1,000 Faces into the Man of 1,000 Voices for his sound films and Chaney does eleven different voices here. The added touch of some comedy works nicely as well.

The 1930 version of The Unholy Three boasts a distinction that guarantees it permanent special status among film buffs: the great silent star Lon Chaney made his only talkie appearance here, shortly before his death from throat cancer at the age of 47. And it's worth noting that this a faithful remake of the 1925 silent version in which Chaney also starred, thus giving us a rare chance to compare two performances by the same actor in the same role but in two very different formats, and to compare the handling of the same material before and after the coming of sound. (When Hollywood remade hits from the silent era the lead roles were almost always recast; parts once played by Doug Fairbanks would go to Errol Flynn, Valentino's would go to Tyrone Power, etc.) This summer I was lucky enough to see restored prints of both versions of The Unholy Three back-to-back at the Museum of Modern Art in NYC, and the experience was fascinating.The plot has been outlined in detail elsewhere, but briefly it involves the criminal career of a trio from the "carny" world: a ventriloquist called Professor Echo (Chaney) who masquerades as an old lady, a strongman, and a midget who disguises himself as a baby. A pet shop is the front for their activities. The trio is accompanied by a thief named Rosie, and a patsy named Hector they've employed who is unaware of their identities and plans. When a heist goes awry the members of the gang turn against each other, and violence erupts.Based on my recent viewings I feel the silent version holds up best. This off-the-wall material plays better in the silent medium, though I found it surprising how similar the two films are when viewed consecutively. When Jack Conway took on directing chores for the remake he must have had a print of the 1925 version available for close study, because there are several sequences in which he follows Tod Browning's editing rhythms and scenic compositions almost exactly. (One example of the latter: the shadow images of the title characters' silhouettes, thrown onto a wall while they plot together.) Even the dialog in the talkie frequently quotes the silent version's title cards verbatim. The biggest change comes in the courtroom finale, where sound allowed the filmmakers to utilize Prof. Echo's vocal talents more creatively. The outcome of the trial is also different in the remake, and somewhat more believable; although the audience at MoMA was respectful toward both films the verdict in the silent version was greeted with a burst of laughter.Why is the silent version the stronger of the two? Certainly Chaney gives a charismatic performance in both films, somehow carrying the viewer past numerous credibility stretchers through sheer force of personality. In the talkie version he demonstrates a fine voice, deep and a little raspy (possibly a result of his medical condition), not unlike Wallace Beery's. Chaney is terrific in both films and is the main reason to see the remake. The 1930 version follows the original so closely we can't blame the writers for going astray, nor are the film's shortcomings entirely the fault of director Conway, at least where visual style is concerned, for he followed Browning's original almost shot-for-shot. No, I believe the difference has to do with the aesthetic gulf between silent and sound film. We're willing to suspend disbelief when watching a silent movie: we'll accept crazy events in silent cinema that would be unacceptable, absurd, or even horrifying (in the wrong sense of the word) in the world of sound. Case in point: one of the most outlandish elements can be found at the pet store, where the proprietors offer birds, hamsters, rabbits -- and a dangerous gorilla, confined in a big cage. No one seems to consider the gorilla's presence unusual. In the silent version, we note this oddity and roll right along. But in the talkie, the gorilla is laugh-provoking; and it doesn't help that instead of the actual simian used in the silent film, the 1930 version features a man in a highly unconvincing ape suit, the sort of tatty-looking costume you'd expect to find in a Bowery Boys comedy.Talkies aren't just silent movies with sound added, they're a new world with different rules, especially where pace is concerned. Early talkies tend to drag, and this one is no exception. Although the remake follows the original closely it feels slower because director Conway and his colleagues hadn't mastered the new medium; they hadn't yet developed that rat-a-tat editing tempo we find in the gangster movies and musicals produced just a year or two later. And although Chaney handled his dialog deftly some of his co-stars did not: both strongman Ivan Linow and "baby" Harry Earles speak with thick accents that are difficult to understand.It's fascinating to see (and hear) Chaney in a talkie, but the remake is fairly slow going. The second Unholy Three is a film that requires patience for the average viewer, though it's a must for anyone with an interest in early talkies, the silent era, and, of course, its star performer. I only wish Lon Chaney had recovered and lived to make more films, once Hollywood's directors had grasped the demands of the new technology and learned to make slicker, more stylish movies that would have displayed his talents to better advantage.