JasparLamarCrabb The talkie version of Tod Browning's 1925 film is competently, if unimaginatively, directed by Jack Conway. Lon Chaney, brilliant in his final role, reprises his role of Echo, the criminal ventriloquist who, along with cronies Harry Earles and Ivan Linow, opens a pet shop specializing in "talking" parrots. Of course, they have nefarious intentions. Things are complicated when Chaney's pickpocket girlfriend Lila Lee falls in love with unsuspecting clerk Elliott Nugent. It's a twisted story, full of humor and suspense. The movie takes on the feel of a macabre bedroom farce as Chaney, in the guise of kindly old lady, frantically tries to dupe his patrons and the police. Lee is terrific (and fetching) as a hard-edged floozy and Nugent is appropriately naive. He looks a little like Harold Lloyd! Earles is effectively creepy but awfully hard to understand. When he dons a baby's gown and is pushed around in a carriage by Chaney, it difficult not to think he was the inspiration for WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT's tough talking Baby Herman. An undeniable classic.

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.

JoeKarlosi I had an afternoon free so I decided to watch the two versions of this Lon Chaney classic back to back, the original 1925 version directed by Tod Browning, and this later sound remake, which was directed by Jack Conway. It's the story of a crooked carnival ventriloquist (Lon Chaney) who teams up with the midget (Harry Earles) and strong man (Ivan Linow) for a series of robberies. Chaney dresses as an old woman and Earles plays a baby to perfect their scheme. In many ways this was a precursor to the popular Little Rascals/Our Gang short subject FREE EATS, where a couple of gangsters act as parents to a couple of little people dressed as infants, mistakenly referred to as "fidgets".I thought this was a wildly entertaining story either way, though it's difficult to fairly judge one film or the other when they're viewed so close together like this. There are pros and cons to both movies for me, though I think I would give this 1930 sound re-do the edge over the previous silent. Of course, this rendition is notable not only for the fact that it's Lon Chaney's last film, but also that it's his one and only SOUND film. I found that I preferred Lila Lee in the role of Rosie O'Grady here as opposed to the silent actress, Mae Busch. I also thought this one had a better courtroom sequence, as well as a more satisfying wrap-up for an ending. The sound film moves more briskly, while the silent felt slightly overlong (though the other was still quite good, and well-directed).It was an amazing treat to get to hear Chaney in his only talking film, and he actually sounded very much as I'd always imagined he would from his gruff exterior. It's essential to hear him doing the voice of the old woman, which was lacking in the original. On the other hand, it was sometimes difficult to always understand the dialogue spoken by Harry Earles (as Tweedledee the midget) and Ivan Linow (as Hercules the strong man). Jack Conway didn't do a bad job at all with this take, but I wouldn't be a bit surprised if most fans feel partial to the silent original just because it was directed by the legendary Tod Browning. My advice is to see them both! **** out of ****

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.