Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933) User Reviews

Bodies of Evidence

[lugonian · 7/10 · 16 November 2008]

MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM (Warner Brothers, 1933), reunites director Michael Curtiz with his DOCTOR X (First National, 1932) co-stars, Lionel Atwill and Fay Wray, in another two-strip Technicolor horror/comedy mystery. A carbon copy of DOCTOR X with a few alterations and improvements thrown in, it ranks the finest and most noteworthy of the Atwill-Fay collaborations (1933's THE VAMPIRE BAT for Majestic was their second), as well as the most eerie and mysterious of them all. While Atwill and Wray had equal status in their initial two outings, Atwill this time dominates while Wray, interestingly, has little to do, not making her screen presence until 30 minutes from the opening titles. She's gone for long stretches and is not visible in the fade-out while Glenda Farrell, the secondary female character, comes close to being the lead, or so it appears. Regardless of Wray's limitations, her character is quite crucial to the story and to Atwill's mentally unbalanced character.

Opening with a prologue set in 1921 London introduces Ivan Igor (Lionel Atwill) as a brilliant sculptor of wax figures of noteworthy figures as Joan of Arc, Jack the Ripper, Disraeli, and his most favorite, Marie Antoinette, hoping for his museum to become successful once it opens to the public. Because he's invested more money than anticipated, Joe Worth (Edwin Maxwell), his partner whom he owes back salary, comes upon a plan to get back some of his investment by burning down the museum and collect on the fire insurance. A fight ensues between the two partners, with Worth breaking away, locking Igor inside the museum surrounded by flames where he's left to burn along with his wax figures. Move forward, New Year's Eve, 1933, in New York City. Ivan, who has survived the burning flames, is wheelchair bound. Unable to recreate his wax figures due to his severely burned hands, he hires assistants, Ralph (Allen Vincent); D'Arcy (Arthur Edmund Carewe) and Hugo (Matthew Betz) to sculpt wax figures for him under his supervision. Successfully reproducing his original creations, Igor is unable to do the same with Marie Antoinette, that is, until he meets her replica, Charlotte Duncan (Fay Wray), Ralph's fiancée. In the meantime, a series of murders have taken place with bodies mysteriously disappearing from the morgue from some figure in a cloak. Millionaire playboy Harold Ritten (Gavin Gordon), who happened to be with Joan Gale on the night of her murder, is suspected and jailed. Florence Parks (Glenda Farrell), Charlotte's roommate and gal reporter for the New York Express, is assigned by her editor (Frank McHugh) to investigate. Following her interview with Harold leading to her constant snooping around Igor's 14th Street wax museum, she discovers something quite startling in connection to the murder, hence "the mystery of the wax museum."

If the story sounds at all familiar, it was reworked more famously as HOUSE OF WAX (Warners, 1954) starring Vincent Price in the Atwill role. Due to the popularity of the remake, the original from which it was based, was virtually unknown, especially since no prints of MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM have survived. Fortunately, an original print was discovered, according to sources, in Jack L. Warner's private vault around the late 1960s. WAX MUSEUM finally turned up on commercial television, notably on New York City's WPIX, Channel 11's "Chiller Theater" on February 10, 1973, where it broadcast annually until 1978, only in black and white format only. It would be another decade before two-strip Technicolor prints surfaced and distributed on home video and DVD, with broadcasts on Turner Network Television (1988-1993) and finally Turner Classic Movies (1994-present).

With Glenda Farrell assuming the wisecracking reporter role Lee Tracy enacted in DOCTOR X, her performance in this venture seems right and warranted, improving over Tracy's lackluster buffoonery. Even if Farrell's character disappoints, the script does not and neither does Atwill. Who could forget his key scenes as the bearded Igor conversing with his favorite wax figure of Marie Antoinette, and his outlook as he witnesses the melting of his "children" in a blazing fire (very realistically done and effective in color), along with his unforgettable confrontation with the screaming Wray as he offers her "eternal life" in the manner that would have done 1925s "Phantom of the Opera" star Lon Chaney proud had he lived to see this.

In some ways, THE MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM is perfect, in others it's not, but must have been good enough to acquire a remake, find the missing negative for the original and have it displayed as one of the finer horror classics to come out from the 1930s. (**1/2)

Mystery of the Wax Museum represents a moderate success for 1930's horror film-making

[The_Void · 7/10 · 18 July 2005]

These days, Mystery of the Wax Museum has become best known for the fact that it was the film that spawned the 1953 classic starring Vincent Price. This is somewhat unfair, however, as although this film isn't a brilliant masterpiece, or even genre classic, it has a right to remembered in it's own right. The film is actually quite daring and inventive for the time when it was made; and despite the fact that nothing too bad is graphically shown, for obvious reasons, some of the imagery on display does actually succeed in being quite disturbing. Take the deformed face of the central character for example; it won't keep you up all night, but considering the time when this was made; the effects are good. The two-strip Technicolor style of the film gives it something of a unique feel; and this again is to it's credit as the film has aged really, really well. The plot line will be familiar to anyone who has seen the Vincent Price version, but here, aside from a museum proprietor that gets his life work melted away in an inferno; we've got a press investigation into the affairs as well.

Lionel Atwill takes the lead role as the unfortunate victim of the flames, and while he's certainly no Vincent Price; he does well with what he's got and helps to create a macabre surrounding around his character, which in turn helps the film in the atmosphere department. Joining him are Glenda Farrell and Fay Wray as the heroine's of the story. Wray plays the girl that the unfortunate artist becomes obsessed with, and Farrell gives a slightly irritating, but very lively performance as a journalist. Both do well with their roles, and although this film isn't exactly an exhibition in acting (unlike Curtiz's masterpiece, Casablanca); the cast do well enough. One thing that is unfortunate for this film is that it's seen as a second feature for the Price version, which will harm what some viewers think of it as the plot elements are very similar to the 1953 film, so it can, at times, feel as though you're simply watching the same film again. However, if viewed as a stand-alone product, Mystery of the Wax Museum represents a solid 30's horror movie and I can see why any horror fan wouldn't enjoy it.

"You can go to some nice warm place and I don't mean California."

[utgard14 · 7/10 · 14 July 2015]

Classic horror movie directed by Michael Curtiz and starring Lionel Atwill as a deranged sculptor with an "interesting" method of making the statues on display at his wax museum. The last (and best) of the three horror movies Lionel Atwill did with Fay Wray. Atwill is fantastic here and Wray is, as always, delightful. Nice support from Frank McHugh, Gavin Gordon, and Edwin Maxwell, among others. The scene stealer of the movie is Glenda Farrell as the fast-talking reporter heroine. She really has fun with the part. A few years later she would star in the Torchy Blane series and play a character very similar to the one she plays here.

It's a good-looking movie, filmed in two-color Technicolor with nice atmospheric direction from Curtiz. The sets are great, especially Atwill's art deco laboratory. The makeup effects are terrific. It's a juicy Pre-Coder, as evidenced by the gruesome plot and the junkie character played by Arthur Edmund Carewe. Some viewers might be put off by the fact that a large chunk of the middle of the picture is more like a crime story/newspaper movie but I was always entertained, particularly by the back & forth between Farrell and McHugh. So it's not a straight horror movie from beginning to end but, so what, it's still a great film and worth a look. Remade in the '50s as House of Wax with Vincent Price. That version is more well-known than this one but I like rewatching this one more. It's just more fun.

A Minor Classic, But Fun

[Doghouse-6 · 27 May 2005]

This film, which was remade as "House Of Wax" 20 years later (as if you didn't know), might not enjoy quite the reputation it does today had it not been the basis for the better-known later film and, more importantly, believed lost for over 30 years, which made it something of a legend for many people who'd never even seen it. Legendary status can be rather difficult to live up to, and unless a viewer is approaching it with no advance knowledge of its history, MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM may not be quite what one expects.

It is, nevertheless, an energetic and entertaining amalgam of genres: horror film meets newspaper crime drama. Dropping a rather Gothic tale of body-snatching, a mad sculptor and a museum of wax-covered corpses into the streamline-moderne milieu of fast-talking, wise-cracking reporters on the trail of a hot story makes for interesting contrasts.

Lionel Atwill, as Ivan Igor, the artist driven to insanity and murder by the destruction of his wax "children" in an arson fire, was an immensely enjoyable performer whose best work came a bit later (see "Son Of Frankenstein" for his portrayal of the one-armed Insp. Krogh). His natural screen presence carries him through, though he never quite generates either the pathos or the smooth menace that Vincent Price displayed in the remake. But from the moment of her entrance, it's Glenda Farrell as Florence Dempsey, the reporter out to save her job by bringing in a scoop - barreling onto the screen with a full head of steam - who propels the story all the way to its finish.

There's an awful lot going on here beyond the basic premise; bootlegging, a "dope fiend," a suicide and a falsely implicated millionaire playboy are thrown into the mix, packing quite a lot into the 77 minute running time (the remake improved the story by eliminating extraneous characters and subplots). A pre-"King Kong" Fay Wray (in her naturally red hair sans the "Kong" blond wig) is the damsel in actual distress, but despite her billing, she's basically a supporting player and has little to do - beyond enduring roommate Florence's snide comments about her penniless boyfriend - until the climactic confrontation between all the bad guys and good guys (and girls).

MYSTERY is well-served by the direction of Michael Curtiz ("Adventures Of Robin Hood," "Casablanca"), who was something of a jack-of-all-genres, and there's plenty of snappy dialogue, some of which (Florence asking a cop, "How's your sex life?") wouldn't have made it to the screen a year later under the newly re-written Production Code. Depending on one's point of view, it could be said that the very effective production design either benefits, or suffers, from the pale pastels of the two-strip Technicolor photography. For my part, I'm guessing that the subdued tones we see today result from the lack of first-rate film elements available. Having seen far superior two-strip from years earlier, I'll wager that the original prints were much more vivid.

If you're any kind of a fan of the remake, you do owe it to yourself to see this one, if only once. There are many things to enjoy in MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM, not the least of which are the fabulous ensembles worn by Farrell. Just how does a newspaper reporter one step away from the breadline afford a wardrobe like that?

Origins of Wax

[scottlukaswilliams · 7/10 · 9 October 2005]

Michael Curtiz has over 170 directing credits, including "The Jazz Singer." Of the films on that list which I have seen, this is my favourite. It's filled with some quite amazing dolly and camera work, the story is fun and the acting is solid.

This story has had a long life. This film, was based on a play. In 1953, it was re-made as a Vincent Price vehicle, "House of Wax" in 3-D. And in 2005, it was re-made again as a teen slasher. The premise is solidly creepy.

Glenda Farrell is hilarious as the young journalist. Her energy leaps off the screen. I guess audiences of 1933 needed quite a bit of comic relief to make it through the rest of this.

Lionel Atwill's make-up is fantastic. It's no surprise that it was designed by a Westmore: Hollywood's premiere make-up family.

This was shot in a two-colour Technicolor process which makes the entire film rather distinctive and moody. The fantastic film noir lighting adds to it as well.

If you can find this, it's a definite must-see! There are so many images and ideas borrowed from it in later horror films it's interesting to see their origins.

An energetic Glenda Farrell and a screaming Fay Wray solve the gruesome secret of those wax mannequins

[Terrell-4 · 7/10 · 28 January 2008]

The Mystery of the Wax Museum is more mystery than horror, but the secret of Ivan Igor (Lionel Atwill), which comes by way of a sharp crack to his head, is satisfyingly startling. Despite the age of the movie, it holds up as a half campy, half affectionate look at what made our grandparents or great grandparents jump in their seats.

The plot has to do with a genius of wax who creates tableaux featuring wax mannequins of famous dead people. When his business partner wants more money and less artistry, the result is a fire for insurance that leaves Igor dead...or so it seems. Years later a new wax museum opens in New York and a resurrected Ivan Igor is behind it. Now he uses assistants to actually create his amazingly lifelike models, since his hands, he says, were severely burned in that fire. Of course, there seem to be a number of disappearances, most likely murders, that are happening around this time. Could there be a connection? A young woman who is searching for her missing roommate, a boyfriend who works for Igor and a very determined female reporter are going to find out.

I liked four things about the movie. First, the look of all those wax mannequins. I'd bet that they were all extras with a little artificial makeup, then posed motionless for the few seconds the camera would linger on them. They had a creepy quality about them that I don't think could have been achieved by using artificial heads. Second, Lionel Atwill. He was a good actor who settled comfortably into B movies in the Thirties and either never wanted to leave the steady money or was never offered a chance later after he had become type-cast. I've always found him to be worth watching, whether as a villainous businessman, a mad scientist or a monster. Third, Glenda Farrell as Florence Dempsey, the blond, feisty reporter who breaks the case. She may only have third billing, but she's the real star of the movie. She later parlayed that character into a series as Torchey Blane in seven movies between 1937 and 1939. Torchey (she's now showing on TCM) is a fast-talking, energetic, impulsive reporter who carries all before her. She's vivid but best in small doses. That's the kind of character Glenda Farrell often played, and that's who Florence Dempsey is, too. And fourth, the wise- cracking relationship between Florence and her editor boss, played by Frank McHugh. It's funny and affectionate...and the movie ends with a smile when Florence picks love over money. As far as Fay Wray, she looks good and screams a lot.

The early Technicolor process gives the movie a lot of charm.

Without this movie we probably didn't have had House of Wax with Vincent Price

[Johan_Wondering_on_Waves · 7/10 · 18 January 2015]

Not too long ago I had bought the DVD of House of Wax (1953). After watching that great movie I noticed there was a special feature on it named "Mystery of the Wax Museum". My first thought was it might be some documentary. I was pleasantly surprised it was in fact a full length movie from the thirties. So I decided to give this one a go too.

Soon it became clear this was the movie that formed an inspiration for House of Wax. They do basically have the same story. So yes House of Wax is a remake. I prefer the remake because it story was not as rushed as the original, characters were better developed, visually better and Vincent Price was wonderful as the wax artist.

This original does have it strong points too. The best thing for me was the energetic character of Glenda Farrell as the female reporter, that I think was the only thing the remake lacked. The wax statues do look very real in this original too. And even though not as good as Price, the artist is here played very well too. I think when his masks falls of he is even scarier than the one in the remake.

A horror film that would have been a musical...

[AlsExGal · 7/10 · 28 November 2009]

...if the musical films of the early 30's had not fallen in such ill favor. Warner Brothers had contracted with the Technicolor corporation to make two more color films, and these were always musicals in those days. When that didn't pan out as economically feasible Warners decided to make two color horror films instead - this one and "Doctor X".

Mystery of the Wax Museum is one of those rare depression-era films that availed itself of two-strip technicolor. It is a good example of a saucy pre-code film with dicey language that has a journalist investigating what turns out to be a horror story. In this way it compares well to 1932's "Doctor X". In this version, Glenda Farrell is really the lead as the fast-talking journalist who just knows that a recently opened wax museum is behind disappearances in the local morgue, and is out to prove it. She plays something you won't see for another 30 years in American cinema starting in 1934 - a hard-boiled girl with an equally hard-boiled mouth. For example, while searching for clues she walks up to a cop friend of hers, grabs the magazine from his hand and asks him "How's your sex life?". The now more famous Fay Wray actually has a minor role as the beautiful girl friend of the apprentice sculptor who plays the part of damsel in distress. Other than this small part at the end of the film she really has little to do here. Farrell carries the lead role well, but I kept thinking that if Ginger Rogers had been available perhaps she could have really made this role sizzle a bit more .

Screaming Fay Wray

[whpratt1 · 7/10 · 21 October 2008]

Enjoyed this 1933 film starring Ivan Igor, (Lionel Atwill) who lost his Wax Museum in a fire which mentally disturbed him and he changed his entire life in order to create a superior museum like figures that appear as human faces.

Florence Dempsey, (Glenda Farrell) played the role as a newspaper woman who needs a news story in order to keep her job and so Florence gets herself involved with investigating a long list of missing persons and find out just what happened to these many people. Glenda gave a great supporting role playing a very funny gal with lots of laughs and wise cracks.

This film version had color and it helped a great deal in making this old Classic a great film to watch all the veteran actors from the past.

Thirties Art Deco Masterpiece!

[csdietrich · 10/10 · 16 February 2001]

The beauty of two-strip Technicolor rendering sensual pastel tones and settings in London (1921) and New York (1933), art direction by legendary Anton Grot, Orry-Kelly gowns, Lionel Atwill at his maddest and Fay Wray in all her splendor, make this one of the finest horror films of not only the 30s but of all time. The pace of this film is fast, the comedy relief enjoyable but not detracting from its story. Atwill imbues his character of Ivan Igor with all the menace and evil he could muster (and that was calibrated in tons!) So far superior to its remake (HOUSE OF WAX with Vincent Price) that it leaves its competitor in the dust. Easily my favorite film to look at after New Year's Eve parties. Fantastic fun and candy for the eyes with all that streamlined Art Deco grandeur!

Pre-Code Classic

[emilywallace-49758 · 7/10 · 12 April 2020]

Glenda Farrell steals the show as an energetic reporter who gets the scoop of a lifetime when she realizes a wax museum is using real life corpses to re-stage their exhibits after their previous museum burnt to the ground.

Mystery of the Wax Museum has been remade twice (both under the title House of Wax) and each film has its own unique stamp to keep things interesting. Being that this is a pre-code movie, there's a good deal more innuendo than you can expect to find in the 1953 remake. There's also a lot more comedy and a general tongue in cheek quality to this film, especially due to Farrell's hysterical performance.

Still, there are some thrills to be had and the killer's ghoulish burnt face makeup can certainly still creep one out in the right lighting. It's worth tracking this one down.

"Made Frankenstein look like a lily"

[Steffi_P · 9/10 · 24 September 2010]

The early 1930s was perhaps the only real golden age of the horror. It didn't really introduce much that was new to the genre, but it contributed many of its unrivalled classics. The horrors of this time have a certain quality whereby they on the one hand revel in all the clichés of the form, whilst at the same time twisting and stretching them with all the playful inventiveness typical of the early sound era.

Take for example the fact that Mystery of the Wax Museum is filmed in two-strip Technicolor. Colour was a rarity at the time and was mostly used to augment the splendour of the many depression-era musicals, and yet the two-strip process seems ideally suited to making this picture what it is. Cinematographer Ray Rennahan (later to receive Academy Awards for Gone with the Wind and Blood and Sand), rather than splurging on a multitude of shades, seems to view colour filming in dual terms of light and dark tone. What you see on the screen bares little resemblance to the usual bland red and green of two-strip. Instead figures tend to be picked out in warm reddish-yellow tones against the gloom, which by contrast almost takes on the blue that was impossible for this format. This warm hue which bathes people and sculpture alike brings to mind blood, fire and wax and is just as eerie as stark monochrome.

Director Michael Curtiz had a real feel for the macabre, as well as a slightly misanthropic tendency to view props and players as being of more or less equal importance. This ironically works in Wax Museum's favour, as Curtiz brings out the various waxworks as characters in their own right. The opening shot is almost like a spoof of the elaborate crowd sweeps with which Curtiz would open pictures like Angels with Dirty Faces and Casablanca, tracking through the lifeless sculptures as if it were some frozen street-scene, eventually alighting on Lionel Atwill like one of the figures come to life. Curtiz also encourages relaxed, understated performances, far more so than was the norm at the time, especially for a director of European origin. Perhaps he didn't want the actors upstaging their inanimate counterparts… Whatever his reasoning, the low-key performances are ideal for the creepy tone of this picture. Lionel Atwill gives one of his most believable turns, presenting Igor as a generally mild-mannered artist, giving a vague, delusional quality to his occasional lapses into anger. His gentle eastern-European accent is enough to remind us of his foreign beginnings without turning him into a vulgar stereotype. The overt hamminess of Bela Lugosi may be massively more fun, but Atwill wins out in the stakes of genuine scariness. And Atwill's success here has much to do with the kind of horror it is he appears in. As we see in Psycho or Silence of the Lambs, a cruel and unusual human mind is a far more frightening prospect than a mere monster.

The other great player here is Glenda Farrell, giving an engaging and likable spin on the wise-cracking go-getting heroine, a character of a sort she would later reprise in the Torchy Blane serial. She may get third billing, just under the better-known Fay Wray, but Farrell is the true lead of this horror-drama, and this in itself is part of the beguiling oddness of Mystery of the Wax Museum. Wray is the then-obligatory female victim, but from the gaggle of male good-guys no-one emerges as her heroic saviour. In a refreshing twist it is this smart sassy woman who takes on the eponymous mystery. The strong conventions of the day around women and action may mean Farrell is excused from the final rescue sequence, but the cunning and determination of her character mean we can view her as a forerunner of Ellen Ripley and Clarice Starling.

"Think of it: in a thousand years you shall be as lovely as you are now!"

[guswhovian · 7/10 · 28 June 2020]

Reporter Florence Dempsey (Glenda Farrell) investigates a strange wax sculptor (Lionel Atwill) when corpses begin vanishing.

Mystery of the Wax Museum is much more obscure than its 1953 remake House of Wax. I preferred this version to House of Wax, though.

This is sort of a companion piece to 1932's Doctor X; many of the same crew (Michael Curtiz & Anton Grot) and actors (Lionel Atwill & Fay Wray) appeared in both. Lionel Atwill's performance as the hilariously named Ivan Igor is very good, and he resists the temptation to go too over-the-top. Fay Wray, despite being second billed, is given very little to do. Glenda Farrell is entertaining as a sort of early 30s Hildy Johnson, and, this being a Warner Brothers film, Frank McHugh appears. Arthur Edward Carewe was very good as the drug-addled henchman.

The 2-strip Technicolor gives eerie quality to the proceedings, and Michael Curtiz directs competently. Anton Grot's set design is very strange, especially the villain's underground lair. The make-up effects are excellent. Probably the best moment in the film is when Wray tears off Atwill's wax mask; it is a very unsettling moment.

Overall, this is one of the better early 30s horror films. First time viewing.

First Version.

[AaronCapenBanner · 4/10 · 19 October 2013]

Michael Curtiz directed this first version of the story about mad and disfigured wax sculptor Ivan Igor(played by Lionel Atwill) who has just reopened a wax museum after his first one was destroyed in a fire. There have been mysterious disappearances of local citizens, and Ivan has taken a particular interest in his assistant's fiancée Charlotte(played by Fay Wray) whose roommate Florence(played by Glenda Farrell) is a reporter on the case. Does Ivan have anything to do with the crimes? Despite a good cast and director, this film has not aged well, being far too talky, and that wisecracking reporter is overbearing. Mostly overshadowed by the 1953 remake.

Landmark horror film that should not be missed

[boris-26 · 9 February 2004]

In the early 1930's Jack Warner was under contract to use the Two-strip technicolor process on a Warner Brothers film. Unfortunately, this primitive form of color cinematography had a limited pallet of colors. Everything had an unnatural pastel look. Warner wisely choose a genre not dependent on reality- the horror film. Their first color horror film was DOCTOR X, a wild and macabre who-dunnit complete with scary murders, truly mad doctors and a cannibal. DOCTOR X, released in 1932, was enough of a success, that Warner Brothers reunited it's director, Michael Curtiz, the two leads, Lionel Atwill and Fay Wray, and the two strip Technicolor process for yet another horror film. The new film, simply titled WAX MUSEUM during production was a fast moving creepy chiller that mixed the gloom of Depression era New York with the creepy going-ons of a wax museum. The film begins in 1921. Sculptor Ivan Igor (a bohemian looking Lionel Atwill), so obsessed creating his wax museum, that he ignores that he and his partner, Worth (Edwin Maxwell) are in deep financial trouble. Worth sets fire to the museum to collect on a fire insurance policy. The museum is destroyed, and Igor is left a cripple with useless hands.

Twelve years later, in Manhattan, Igor opens a new wax museum. At the same time, a wisecracking reporter, Florence (Glenda Farrell) tracks a hot case of the corpse of a recently murdered socialite stolen from the morgue. She begins to suspect that creepy wax museum downtown of stealing bodies and posing them as wax statues. What makes things worse, is that her best friend, Ruth (Fay Wray) is dating the most innocent of the questionable wax-workers. THE MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM is a DVD shelf must-have.

Strong and influential horror film, pre-censorship

[Leofwine_draca · 7/10 · 30 August 2016]

MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM is one of those '30s grand guignol-style horror films that I so love, and as an added bonus it's filmed in Technicolor, which makes it pretty unique. Seeing actresses and actors such as Fay Wray and Lionel Atwill starring in full colour makes a refreshing change from their typical greyscale performances so the film wins points for novelty value alone. For those looking for originality, it would probably be best to try elsewhere, as MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM's plot has been re-used so frequently since its concept that it now seems familiar and a little stale. There was a decent '50s remake with Vincent Price called HOUSE OF WAX and a remake of that remake with the same name in the early 2000s. Add in all the countless B-movies and Z-flicks like NIGHTMARE IN WAX (even Mexican wrestler Santo visited a wax museum for one outing) and you have a movie that leaves you feeling a little fidgety despite the short running time.

Anyway, it's business as usual for a '30s horror, with strong direction and great style. The art design is spot on and the waxworks are effortlessly spooky in themselves. This was made just before the onslaught of film censorship so it's intriguing to see drug addicts featuring in the cast. The performances are uniformly excellent, with Lionel Atwill reminding us of why he was one of the true titans of horror – a man who deserved his crown every bit as much as Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi until his virtual blacklisting around 1940. Fay Wray's lovely too, although her role here amounts to an extended cameo, if that. While the others can't be faulted, I did find Glenda Farrell's brash reporter to be pretty irritating – this is no criticism of the actress but rather the script, which overdoes her rattling dialogue and smug nature – I found myself wanting to chuck her in the vat of boiling wax rather than Atwill! There are plenty of good horrible moments, some of them inspired by German expressionist works as disfigured, be-cloaked figures in dark hats wander around bodysnatching and the police are always one step behind. There's an iconic 'unmasking' scene which is only slightly lessened by the fact that we've seen Atwill's face before – bad move, filmmakers – and a classic ending which was memorably spoofed in CARRY ON SCREAMING. This is a film that horror lovers and fans of classic cinema will enjoy no matter what as one of the highlights of the period.

A great classic horror flick.

[KingM21 · 7/10 · 2 September 2005]

I didn't really expect this to be as good as it was. Wax Museum was interesting and fun, both as a horror film and a picture from the 30's. The whole idea of real humans being the base for wax sculptures is a good one and it's executed nicely here. The shots of melting faces are particularly creepy. Lionel Atwill does just fine as the lead (good make-up effects) and Glenda Farrell plays a feisty, wisecracking (and sometimes grating) reporter, who, by the way, keeps the pace of the movie hopping. Fay Wray also has a small role too. Wax Museum was shot in a two color Technicolor process, which I thought looked cool. I also found some of the film to be rather risqué for the time, such as with certain lines of dialogue ("How's your sex life?") and other innuendos, and the dope fiend (who was changed to an alcoholic for the remake). Yep, this has become one of my favorite horrors from this decade.

Good, but not great

[calilove · 7/10 · 22 June 2001]

I watched this film late last night, and while it held my attention, I did not find it nearly as enjoyable as many of the other horror films of the era (Bride of Frankenstein, Dracula, etc.). First of all, the comic relief provided by Glenda Farrell seemed out of place, serving only to lessen the effectiveness of the film. Fay Wray's part was largely underdeveloped, and she appeared only in the last half of the movie.

(possible spoiler ahead)

Nonetheless, this movie had its moments, especially the part where Fay Wray slaps off Lionel Atwill's wax face! The creepy storyline also added to my enjoyment. Therefore, I give this movie 7 out of 10.

Classic horror

[dbborroughs · 7/10 · 20 January 2008]

I haven't seen this in ages and the chance to have it on DVD was the reason I picked up the House of Wax that was recently released since this was a bonus feature.

Shot in two color Technicolor this is the source of the Vincent Price House of Wax and in some ways is better. Comedy aside this is a creepy movie with the off key color helping it greatly.

You know the drill, wounded wax sculptor reopens his wax museum just as some fiend begins stealing dead bodies from the morgue, is there a connection? Lionel Atwill plays the sculptor, Faye Wray the object of his eye. The movie is fast moving and a lot of fun. When the unmasking scene finally happens its both horrifying and incredibly sad, the villain playing it with a just a touch of pathos missing from Price's film. The horror is undercut by the fact that we see the makeup early in the film, which is creepy but undermines the shock at the end.

An old creepy creaky classic.

Vintage horror. A true classic.

[michaelRokeefe · 7/10 · 10 November 2007]

Legendary Michael Curtiz directs this seldom seen piece of horror. Pioneering Technicolor cinematography. Years after his first wax museum fell victim to a demolishing blaze set by his business partner(Edwin Maxwell); talented and disfigured sculptor Ivan Igor(Lionel Atwell) turns to murder and uses the bodies for his wax covered replicas of famous people in his newest was museum. Igor's ego leads to his own downfall by using a very recognizable rising starlet for his prized Joan of Arc. Impressive are the scenes of the wax figures melting in the fire. Other players include: Fay Wray, Glenda Farrell, Holmes Herbert and Frank McHugh.

Enjoyable Horror Mystery

[Space_Mafune · 9/10 · 7 November 2002]

This film is full of unexpected twists and turns as should be any good mystery. When bodies begin disappearing, a desperate reporter finally hopes to get the break she needs to keep her job by attempting to unravel the mystery. She soon finds herself investigating a new wax museum which just happens to have a woman figurine of Joan of Arc which greatly resembles one of the missing bodies named Joan Gale. From there things continue to unravel and conclude in surprisingly horrific fashion for the time and era.

The Horror is there in terms of the mysterious burnt figure we see snatching the bodies as well as many other strange figures often seen only in menacing shadow.

The acting is superb. Lionel Atwill is outstanding in the role of Ivan Igor-the owner of the new wax museum who is trying to recapture his past loss. Fay Wray is stunningly beautiful in her short role as Charlotte who finds herself in a whole lot of unexpected trouble. Glenda Farrell also adds considerable energy as the female reporter--a character which unfortunately became much too common and stereotypical in this period of film. Nonetheless Farrell is quite competent in the role and definitely adds her own stamp to it.

Turtle Wax

[BumpyRide · 7/10 · 16 February 2006]

In many aspects I like this film better than the second remake. I really liked the female reporter angle as opposed to just a nosey girlfriend. I also liked it taking place in "modern day" rather than the turn of the century in England. The two movies are almost identical story wise with several scenes being shot almost identically, even the same lines were used most of the time. The sets were very stylistic, borrowing from the deco period and even German Expresionism. Fay Wray was charming as was Glenda Farrel. Those two dames walk away with this picture. The Technicolor was very drab and I found it to be somewhat distracting at times. Overall a very good film without the silliness of the remake.

Colorful Horror Film

[Ron Oliver · 10/10 · 23 January 2000]

London after dark. A gallery of life-like wax figures. An argument, a fight & a fire. A man left to die in the flames. And as they melt, the figures seem to weep at their own destruction.

So starts MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM, credited as the first horror film with a modern urban setting - New York City. Glenda Farrell is the brash, blonde reporter trying to help her pal Fay Wray discover the secrets of a new wax museum just about to open, and those of its director Lionel Atwill, who is confined to a wheelchair due to a past accident. Murder & mayhem & wax-covered flesh will all figure into the plot before the mystery is solved.

This was one of Atwill's best roles, playing an artist driven to dementia by the destruction of the only things he ever really loved. His is a very special, nuanced performance.

Like DOCTOR X the year before, MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM benefits from wonderful Anton Grot sets (especially the wax bath) and from having been filmed in early two-strip Technicolor, which makes all the ghastly figures seem to come alive...

typical horror film, many big stars

[ksf-2 · 7/10 · 10 August 2018]

Big bucket of hollywood stars in this one! Fay Wray, from King Kong! Glenda Farrell, Frank McHugh. Strange coloring in this one... the backgrounds are blue, due to the color process, but there are mostly pinks where the other colors ought to be. Shenanigans at the wax museum owned by Igor and Worth ( Atwill and Ed Maxwell). Worth wants to collect the insurance money by burning up the museum, but Atwill is much more attached to the shop, and doesn't like that idea. This was before Frank McHugh had really gone off on his own style of comedy... he's a little more serious here, as the big shot at the newspaper. Glenda Farrell comes on really strong here, always on the go, trying to get the big scoop. It's pretty good. they keep remaking this film, so the story must be pretty solid. Directed by Michael Curtiz... this was about halfway through his career. had started in the silents, and made many a talkie. Curtiz had won best director for Casablanca (and rightfully so !). Wax Museum shows on Turner Classic now and then.

I Thought The Remake In 1953 Was Better

[sddavis63 · 5/10 · 4 October 2012]

This movie was remade 20 years later as "House of Wax," with Vincent Price in the role of the wax artist played in this original by Lionel Atwill. Interestingly - because (a) I don't usually care that much for remakes, and (b) I'm not big on Vincent Price - I thought the remake was the stronger of the two movies. Many won't agree with me on that, of course, but "House of Wax" was one of Price's better performances, and I found this version somewhat lacking in both atmosphere and suspense. The story is the same with only a few adjustments, but I felt it was pulled off better in '53.

The cast didn't really blow me away. The most interesting thing about the cast was probably the opportunity to see Fay Wray in a movie other than "King Kong." But as Charlotte, her role was - similar to "Kong" - not a substantive acting performance. She looked both beautiful and vulnerable, so you hope she's going to be OK (and she does get to do a Fay Wray scream toward the end!), but I didn't find her performance particularly powerful. And, of course, she wasn't the lead actress. That would have been Glenda Farrell as Florence, the hard-nosed female reporter for the New York Express newspaper. Farrell was probably the strongest member of the cast. She pulled off the role well, and was quite believable for the most part.

A major problem with this movie was the last scene. The ending of a movie (which I won't give away, although it's not all that important to the overall story) has to somehow connect to the rest of the movie - otherwise it just leaves me scratching my head. I was left scratching my head after this was over. I thought the writers made a very poor decision in coming up with a final scene that seemed both forced (between the actors) and artificial (between the characters.) I won't say more, except to say that it left me dry, which is not the way you should be left after watching a movie. (5/10)