From "DwightFry" Well, I'm afraid I've found the lemon.
Let's be honest: This is not a really bad movie. But only because of Cagney. His performance is a real tour-de-force, with him getting back to his roots as a dancer. We get to see the man we think of as Cody Jarrett and Tom Powers, doing funny clown routines, dancing, impersonating an old woman, and showing his warmer side. However, this is both good and bad, as Cagney does a great Cagney, but he never becomes the person he is supposed to be, that is, the legendary Lon Chaney. Apart from the the true facts of Chaney's life being ignored (a common thing in biopics), the terrible script, surprisingly Oscar-nominated, is standard soap opera at its worst, with too much melodrama and too little of what made Chaney great. "We get no insight on how he prepared his makeup, or on how painful to wear it frequently was." Given that, it's surprising a Chaney biopic was ever green-lighted, as his life, unlike that of so many movie stars, was mostly secretive to public opinion, and the few interesting anecdotes of him are not in the movie (Creighton being born half dead, and Lon getting him into icy water to revive him). And, even worse, a person that watches this movie without having seen any of Chaney's films, will dismiss these as phony and corny, and the makeups silly and badly done. The reconstructions of The Hunchback of Notre Dame and The Phantom of the Opera look like cheap Halloween masks made by a kid, which is in itself an insult to Chaney's meticulous makeup, and evidences only that short, broad Cagney didn't look like tall, thin Chaney the slightest, not even under heavy makeup (or masked, or whatever). Cagney is only Cagney, he's the Man of a Single Face, and a very recognizable one. If you're gonna make the mistake of casting a big star to play a well-known figure (another common biopic error, that way you only see the star and not the character), at least cast a big star who resembles said figure. Casting Cagney as Chaney is like casting Danny De Vito as James Stewart.
We DO get an insight as to his use of makeup and the pain it caused him. His instant creation of the Lascar's makeup is proof of that. And his portrayal of the deformed man in "The Miracle" and Quasimodo in "Hunchback" are proof of the pain. As far as the makeup is concerned they do not look cheap unless you try to compare them to current day makeup. And as far as Cagney being too short to play Chaney Lon was 5 ft 8 in and Cagney was 5 ft 7 in, not much of a difference at all.
Again if you are going to review at least get your facts straight!!!!! 10 of 10 for Jimmy and the movie -10 of 10 for DwightFry's poor critique!
Let's be honest: This is not a really bad movie. But only because of Cagney. His performance is a real tour-de-force, with him getting back to his roots as a dancer. We get to see the man we think of as Cody Jarrett and Tom Powers, doing funny clown routines, dancing, impersonating an old woman, and showing his warmer side. However, this is both good and bad, as Cagney does a great Cagney, but he never becomes the person he is supposed to be, that is, the legendary Lon Chaney. Apart from the the true facts of Chaney's life being ignored (a common thing in biopics), the terrible script, surprisingly Oscar-nominated, is standard soap opera at its worst, with too much melodrama and too little of what made Chaney great. "We get no insight on how he prepared his makeup, or on how painful to wear it frequently was." Given that, it's surprising a Chaney biopic was ever green-lighted, as his life, unlike that of so many movie stars, was mostly secretive to public opinion, and the few interesting anecdotes of him are not in the movie (Creighton being born half dead, and Lon getting him into icy water to revive him). And, even worse, a person that watches this movie without having seen any of Chaney's films, will dismiss these as phony and corny, and the makeups silly and badly done. The reconstructions of The Hunchback of Notre Dame and The Phantom of the Opera look like cheap Halloween masks made by a kid, which is in itself an insult to Chaney's meticulous makeup, and evidences only that short, broad Cagney didn't look like tall, thin Chaney the slightest, not even under heavy makeup (or masked, or whatever). Cagney is only Cagney, he's the Man of a Single Face, and a very recognizable one. If you're gonna make the mistake of casting a big star to play a well-known figure (another common biopic error, that way you only see the star and not the character), at least cast a big star who resembles said figure. Casting Cagney as Chaney is like casting Danny De Vito as James Stewart.
We DO get an insight as to his use of makeup and the pain it caused him. His instant creation of the Lascar's makeup is proof of that. And his portrayal of the deformed man in "The Miracle" and Quasimodo in "Hunchback" are proof of the pain. As far as the makeup is concerned they do not look cheap unless you try to compare them to current day makeup. And as far as Cagney being too short to play Chaney Lon was 5 ft 8 in and Cagney was 5 ft 7 in, not much of a difference at all.
Again if you are going to review at least get your facts straight!!!!! 10 of 10 for Jimmy and the movie -10 of 10 for DwightFry's poor critique!