Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

Truly Dreadful Film

The acting in this movie is really good.

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

IMO - This 1957 bio-pic of famed silent-era actor and make-up artist, Lon Chaney failed to rise above being mere mediocrity for the most part.For one thing - Not only did I find that actor, James Cagney was not at all suited for his part as Chaney - But, Cagney was nearly 60 at the time of this production and he did a mighty poor job of convincingly portraying a man who was only 30.Another problem with this presentation was that it, unfortunately, turned Chaney's private life into too much of a soap opera for my liking.As I understand it - This film was largely a fictionalized account of Chaney's life. In reality - Chaney was a notoriously private man who shunned "Hollywood" publicity as much as he could.*Note* - In 1930 - Lon Chaney (47 at the time) died of lung cancer.

Sometimes it's best not to know too much about a subject if it's going to ruin your movie viewing experience. This picture is panned by a lot of the reviewers here because of the historical inaccuracies and Cagney's lack of resemblance to Lon Chaney. None of this however ruined my enjoyment of the picture, as Cagney does a superb job of recreating some of Chaney's famous silent film characters along with portraying the actor's conflicted private life. As a kid growing up in the Fifties, I never knew there was a Chaney 'Senior', and the only one I could relate to was the 'Wolf Man' Chaney from his horror films and later, his TV and movie Western roles.For Cagney, this was a natural in more ways than one. One of the things the movie touches on is the major transition of moving pictures from the silent film era into the talkies. Cagney's portrayal shows how Chaney made the move from vaudeville into the silents in the first place, and later on into the new medium that film executive Irving Thalberg (Robert Evans) characterized as the 'bell tolling for silent pictures'. Cagney himself lived through the passing of these eras, starting out as a dancer and catching his very first break in talking pictures in 1930 with impressive performances in "Sinner's Holiday" and "Doorway to Hell".The most emotional scenes in the picture deal with Chaney's personal life - the first meeting of Cleva Creighton (Dorothy Malone) with Chaney's deaf mute parents, the agonizing wait for the birth of their 'normal' baby, and Cleva's despondency over being sequestered from a life of her own outside the home. Later on the story delves into Creighton Chaney's newly discovered relationship with Cleva and the attendant conflict it creates with his father.The one thing I would have handled differently I think most movie fans would agree with. By 1957 when this film came out, Lon Chaney Jr. was already a known commodity with his 1941 portrayal of the iconic Wolf Man character, followed by more monster portrayals and other homely characters like Lennie in 1939's "Of Mice and Men". Having not only a handsome but a stunningly handsome actor like Roger Smith portray the adult (Lon) Creighton Chaney was a major disconnect, so I have to remind myself to re-read my own first paragraph.

"Loosely based....". When I hear this about a bio-pic, it is a complete turnoff to me. I think some it was because I was a history teacher--and to me, history is sacred--you tell it exactly like it was. Yet, in so many Hollywood films, the truth isn't deemed interesting enough and they heavily embellish the picture. Thus is the story of Lon Chaney in "The Man of a Thousand Faces". While the main points are correct, Chaney's interesting life just wasn't interesting enough for the folks at Universal and they played fast and loose with some of the facts. I didn't like this--but must acknowledge that it was an entertaining story.However, there is one other issue about the film about which I have a unique perspective. Like Chaney, I have a deaf family member--in my case, my daughter. And because of this, I can talk about a few things the average viewer wouldn't notice. When the people are using sign language in the film, they really are using sign language--though they do it a bit poorly. As a result, you can see that the parents of Chaney in the film are not natural signers--but I appreciate that they tried. One thing I did not appreciate, however, is that the film seemed to exploit Chaney's parents--creating problems that did not exist in real life. For example, when Chaney's first wife meets them, she has no idea they are deaf--but this was NOT the case in real life and it just felt cheap--like they were capitalizing on their deafness for the sake of a plot gimmick. That was pretty sad.Aside from my complaints and observations, I still think this is a very good film. Just understand it all is heavily dramatized and you can take some of it with a grain of salt. Also, it was nice to see the silent comic Snub Pollard in a bit scene midway through the film.

A film legend played by an even bigger film legend. Two stories about shifting from a silent world to a speaking one. This is interesting.Families: an honest son (himself a film celebrity, but of lower order). Two wives, one flawed. A grudge. This is not interesting, even in the slightest.A walk through the confusion of silent filming. The most interesting of all.The "point" of the movie is that this man of many faces created one for the family he wished, and another for the wife he blamed for not trying, even though he got her pregnant without revealing a significant genetic flaw. This is done poorly.All in all, this barely rises to a 2.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.