Even at their most unremarkable, there's generally something irrepressibly charming about silent films, and in some capacities this one is a good example. The sense of humor and entertainment is sometimes very simple and even quaint, more passive amusement than robust fun. We see passing reflections of notions like abusive labor practices or the necessary resourcefulness of the working class, showing that even almost 100 years later, the more things change, the more they stay the same. And sometimes we see elements of early film-making, or attempts at gags, that just haven't aged well, such as the use of blackface, which even at its most "innocent" is rather distasteful unless the context is emphatic mockery of the concept. Yet for all in 'Three's a crowd' that doesn't necessarily immediately inspire, there's also a lot to enjoy. It's not the most essential film of the 1920s, but this is still a pretty good time.
Star and director Harry Langdon sometimes gets mentioned alongside silent luminaries like Chaplin, Keaton, and Lloyd, and at his best one can see why. He has a propensity for physical comedy, stunts, and sacrificing his body that lends to a great deal of humor, in addition to the sight gags and situational comedy that rounds out any given picture. One sees glimmers of this intelligence in 'Three's a crowd,' and it's duly enjoyable. Would that it were applied more consistently, or that the writing, direction, and sequencing were tighter and more mindful to better facilitate the storytelling and merriment. This is hardly to say that this particular feature is bad - only, this would seem to be Langdon's first outing as a director, and broadly speaking it kind of shows. Case in point - though the narrative is complete, the ending mostly just kind of peters out, and the last impression we have of the movie is arguably at one of its weakest points.
Though it's no one's fault, it's also worth noting the apparent deterioration over time of the surviving print before it was digitized. There are a few considerable stretches in which the image quality is so heavily degraded that the visual presentation is all but entirely nullified - a deeply unfortunate reality of watching pictures from so long ago. Still, through every shortcoming of the movie as it was and the movie as we see it, there was no intent here except light-hearted entertainment. Save for that it is a surviving title of the earliest years of cinema, there's nothing about 'Three's a crowd' that stands out so much as to demand viewership, but it fairly succeeds in its modest goal, and anyone who appreciates older films will surely find this to their liking, too. Moreover, one can only admire the hard work that went into the production, including set design and decoration, hair and makeup, and even the basic orchestration of scenes that are filled with silliness of one type or another. The climax is notably imaginative and done well, including some sharp editing. Everyone involved put in fine work to make this a reality, and though it may not get name-dropped the way some of its brethren do, or deserve to, Langdon's directorial debut is nevertheless suitably enjoyable.
If you're not already a fan of the silent era then there won't be anything here to change your mind. For those enamored of film history, however, this is satisfying enough and worthwhile if you come across it. Likeable if not a must-see, 'Three's a crowd' is a decent way to pass an hour.
