So much average

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

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.

The Unholy Three is a disappointing and sad picture to watch, not because it was bad but because death looms over Lon Chaney. I find it amazing how terrific he is in his talkie debut despite the fact that we was in pain for the entire production of this film. The Unholy Three isn't a great picture, it's better than mediocre at best but the fact remains is that Chaney was able to go out on a high note with so many questions left. Todd Browning's original Unholy Three is by far the superior picture it is darker and Chaney shows more undertones of villainy in it, as a remake this picture doesn't capture the spirit of the original at all. Harry Earles is one actor who could have remained silent, his voice is completely not understandable. In remaking the picture they should have given more dialouge to the Hercules character because he is merely a prop in the grand scheme of things.The problem with this picture is that that Conway doesn't understand the material. I wanted Todd Browning the entire picture. This one is far too light and the mood isn't as foreboding as it should have been. The scene with the detective in the original picture is full of suspense but here it lacks any dramatic conviction.Chaney's voice is the draw to this film and rightfully so. Well what did I think of it? I was somewhat disappointed, I wish he had done a picture that we hadn't seen before with it. He is very good but it takes away much of the mysterious allure that surrounded him and his characters. He does give a terrific performance though and I have no doubts that he could have enjoyed a long and illustrious career in the talkies. The fact is what we are seeing here isn't up to Chaney's full potential because keep in mind he was suffering from lung cancer at the time. The scene where Granny O'Grady goes for her cough syrup bi t at my soul. It is entirely fitting that Lon Chaney ends his career and sadly his life with that old gip "THat's all there is to life, just a little laugh, a little tear."

Somehow the ape in the silent version was okay. It was kind of an off the wall movie all around, so an ape? Why not. However, the addition of sound made the ape look remarkably out of place. Perhaps like some other silent stars the switch to talkies found it out for lacking talent.Thankfully the same cannot be said of Lon Chaney. His one talkie, and I think choosing to remake The Unholy Three was a sound decision. The scenes with Chaney and Earles, both as Echo and Tweedledee, and as Mrs O'Grady and her grandson, were the highlights for me. Rosie was a far more interesting character in this version, mainly down to the charismatic Lila Lee.Watching Chaney disappear into the night on the back of a train was also surprisingly moving.Not as good as the silent version, but I'm glad it was made.

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.