daoldiges I've seen this movie in both 2-D and 3-D and highly suggest waiting until you have the opportunity to experience it its original 3-D if possible. If that's not an option for you then it's still worth checking out even in 2-D, it just won't be as fun. It offers lots of good and then some not so good elements. The leading lady is a bit bland and some of the supporting characters acting is weak. However, the story is solid and interesting, Price is excellent, the sets and score are engaging, and it's kind of fun seeing an early Bronson role. I have to admit that I never really found this film actually scary, but I still enjoy it quite a bit.

JohnHowardReid Producer: Bryan Foy. Copyright 21 May 1953 by Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc. New York opening at the Paramount: 10 April 1953. U.S. release: 25 April 1953. London opening (in 3-D): June 1953. Not generally released in the U.K. (a flat version) until 1955. Australian release (in 3-D): 14 May 1953. Sydney opening at the Mayfair in WarnerPhonic Sound. 88 minutes. NOTES: A re-make of the 1933 Mystery of the Wax Museum. Studio head Jack L. Warner wanted to become the first major studio to cash in on the 3-D boom. He told editor Rudi Fehr he would have only five weeks to edit the movie. Fehr thrilled Warner when he answered that he could actually finish the editing in less time if De Toth were to shoot the film in sequence. To do this required the use of two sound stages for interior sets, plus the backlot. Two cinematographers were employed so that DeToth and company could move instantly from one pre-lighted set to another. Blacklisted screenwriter Ned Young did have a simultaneous career as an actor. Here we catch him as Jarrod's bearded assistant. He has a great scene with Lovejoy (though his performance isn't a patch on that given by Arthur Edmund Carewe in the original movie. Admittedly, Carewe has the better lines and his part was not emasculated by the censor). This was the movie that marked a turning point in Vincent Price's career, catapulting him into stratospheric fame in the horror genre. Both a blessing and a curse, as he often remarked. It was nice to have security and the money to pursue his major interest in Art. On the other hand, he became typecast and was rarely offered roles he would have preferred to play outside the genre. Only movie appearance of Reggie Rymal, a night club comedian and expert paddle-ball artist. Negative cost: $658,000. Initial domestic rentals gross: $9,500,000. COMMENT: One of the most memorable cinemagoing experiences of the 1950s, "House of Wax" actually exerted a far greater impact on contemporary audiences than The Robe. Projected flat and without stereophonic sound, all the movie's excitements are lost. The movie was intended for 3-D. The sets were designed that way, the camera angles were chosen with 3-D in mind, and the screenplay was written to take advantage of 3-D effects and not worry about irrelevant side issues like believable characters, a credible plot or inaccuracies in the period setting. In the flat version, Price hams it up no end, his make-up is ridiculous, and most of the support players, including the lovely Phyllis Kirk, seem weak as water. Exceptions are stoically menacing Charles Bronson (who walks away with the acting honors) and out-of-step Carolyn Jones who manages the difficult feat of playing her part as an over-the-top parody and out-acting everyone else on the screen, including Mr Price. The plot has more holes than a carriage and four could be driven through, while most of the dialogue would not pass muster for the meanest effort of Producers Releasing Corporation. Needless to say, all this doesn't matter a fig in 3-D.

classicsoncall I had a brief 'huh?' moment when that carnival barker (Reggie Rymal) showed up for the opening of the House of Wax Museum. It was only after I read a few of the reviews here that I learned this was originally a 3D film and those paddle ball blasts would have been a real highlight for movie goers of the era. Otherwise the guy's appearance was almost as out of place as that 'Intermission' sequence that might have lasted about ten seconds, requiring one to actually hit the pause button to get a cup of coffee.It's been a while since I've seen Lionel Atwill in the 1933 version of this film, "Mystery of the Wax Museum". Both share a similar story line and choosing the better of the two is probably a matter of personal preference. I like both Atwill and Vincent Price so for me it's a toss up. However Price's first appearance in the picture as the figure in black was almost comical to me, limping along like some deranged Zorro. He even had two accomplices dressed exactly the same way when he stole the body of Cathy Gray (Carolyn Jones) from the city morgue.I guess it's no big thing, but if you're paying attention you probably question as I did how the crippled Jarrod wasn't able to stay in character with his disability as time went on. When he made Matthew Burke his first victim and went chasing Sue Allen (Phyllis Kirk) through the city streets at night he was hobbling along with his deformed foot at an awkward angle, but by the time he's fighting off the cops at the finale, he's running up stairs with the agility of an athlete.The biggest surprise for me in this picture was seeing Charles Bronson show up as Henry Jarrod's (Price) assistant at the wax museum. He was still using his real name Buchinsky at the time but depending on the movie or TV credit, it was spelled differently, making me wonder if that was intended or just a matter of getting his name spelled wrong by film makers. Some of his credits even list him as 'Chas' as his name showed up in the credits for a Roy Rogers TV episode back in the Fifties.Well aside from all that, Vincent Price fans ought to have a pretty good time with this one. This was the film that launched his eventual status as a horror film icon, making me an instant fan as a kid with the likes of "The Fly" and "House on Haunted Hill" in the late Fifties. He had that great voice and terrific presence as an actor, ranking him right up there with the other greats like Karloff and Chaney.

Rainey Dawn Prof. Henry Jarrod loves his wax figures that he has created with love and passion by his own hands. The wax works-of-art seems to be the professors only love outside of the historical museum itself - but one wax figure stands tall over the rest Marie Antoinette, the professors most cherished wax-work. He will seek revenge on those that have destroyed everything he's worked for and everything he loves.This is the best version of the film I have seen (although I have yet to see the 2005 remake to fairly judge).This is a good late night film to watch - maybe making it (House of Wax) a double feature with the original "Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933)".7.5/10