Lon Chaney gave a heartfelt and moving performance, and the story was interesting. I don't know if this film is considered incomplete or not, but it kind of felt to me that some information may have been missing, such as more detail on Chaney's criminal past, for example.
The most amazing thing I was struck by was the direction by Tod Browning. It was very well crafted, and so now I'm beginning to wonder about those stories by David Manners saying that Browning actually did not direct most of 1931's "Dracula" after all. Because with THE UNKNOWN here is earlier proof that the director could do very interesting work. Considering that THE UNKNOWN, FREAKS and even MARK OF THE VAMPIRE are all better directed than "Dracula", it now seems to me more than ever that Dracula was either: A.) intentionally filmed slow and methodic, or B.) that Karl Freund actually directed most of "Dracula", since its slow and draggy style was almost identical to his THE MUMMY. People have said that Browning "couldn't make the transition to talkies," yet FREAKS and MARK OF THE VAMPIRE prove otherwise, I think.
The most amazing thing I was struck by was the direction by Tod Browning. It was very well crafted, and so now I'm beginning to wonder about those stories by David Manners saying that Browning actually did not direct most of 1931's "Dracula" after all. Because with THE UNKNOWN here is earlier proof that the director could do very interesting work. Considering that THE UNKNOWN, FREAKS and even MARK OF THE VAMPIRE are all better directed than "Dracula", it now seems to me more than ever that Dracula was either: A.) intentionally filmed slow and methodic, or B.) that Karl Freund actually directed most of "Dracula", since its slow and draggy style was almost identical to his THE MUMMY. People have said that Browning "couldn't make the transition to talkies," yet FREAKS and MARK OF THE VAMPIRE prove otherwise, I think.