Leofwine_draca 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.

Scott LeBrun The great Lionel Atwill plays Ivan Igor, renowned sculptor in 1921 London whose partner Joe Worth (Edwin Maxwell) attempts to burn down their business for the insurance. 12 years later, Igor is trying to make another go of it, opening another wax museum in NYC. Meanwhile, people are beginning to disappear from the streets, and reporter Florence Dempsey (Glenda Farrell), a very pushy type if ever there was one, sniffs out the story.While the 1953 remake "House of Wax" had the 3-D gimmick going for it, this reasonably entertaining shocker is interesting in its own way. Most striking is the use of a two-colour Technicolor process, which really brings the great Anton Grot sets to life. While horror elements don't come into play that often in this version of the tale, there are some creepy and fun moments as a stranger with a horrible visage prowls around, and helps themselves to dead bodies. Clocking in at a fairly trim 78 minutes, "Mystery of the Wax Museum" may not appeal to horror fans across the board, especially with its strong accent on comedy and rapid fire, witty dialogue. But some of that dialogue *is* pretty priceless. There are moments where a music score would have been useful, but director Michael Curtiz is still able to create some tension and suspense. The makeup effects by Ray Romero and Perc Westmore are superb.Lovely Fay Wray is put in peril here, and screams quite well, in this film from the same year as "King Kong". Gavin Gordon is likable as rich kid George Winton, who falls under suspicion of murder. Arthur Edmund Carewe is quite good as the drug addicted Professor Darcy. But the film truly belongs to Atwill, at his delicious, villainous best, and the brassy Farrell. Her lively performance may be a matter of taste, but she adds undeniable energy, especially when she's sparring with her long suffering editor Jim (Frank McHugh).Overall, a fine entertainment.Seven out of 10.

binapiraeus Since Warner Brothers' big venture of making the first two-color talkie a horror movie, "Doctor X', had been very successful, it was only logical that the first THREE-color movie, with the colors further developed and more natural, would also be a horror film - and they also went with the slogan 'never change a winning team': again, Michael Curtiz, one of Hollywood's most able directors ever, took on the direction, and cute, pretty Fay Wray and gentle, but somehow sinister-looking Lionel Atwill played the leads. And there also was a curious reporter again - but the female edition this time: Glenda Farrell, who would prove lots of times (most notably as 'Torchy Blane') that she was just IDEAL for the role of the fresh girl reporter! It all begins in London in 1921: uniquely gifted, but also quite eccentric Ivan Igor has created a wonderful House of Wax - which unfortunately is doing pretty badly financially, because he only depicts historical figures like Voltaire, Joan of Arc and Marie Antoinette instead of murderous anti-heroes like Jack the Ripper that the other Houses of Wax expose, making lots of profit from the curiosity of the visitors. So, his partner, a complete ignorant of real art, proposes to 'just' set the whole place on fire in order to collect the fire insurance - and he actually does. Horrified, Igor watches his beloved masterpieces melting and tries to save them; but they're all destroyed - and his hands forever crippled...12 years later, in New York, Igor opens a new Wax Museum; with the help of young artists, since he himself is unable to work anymore - he clearly disapproves of his assistants' 'talents'; and yet, the first great pieces, his Joan of Arc and his Voltaire, are extraordinary works of art again... And at the same time, bodies are being stolen from the morgue, which makes cheeky reporter Florence suspicious - especially since one of them resembled Joan of Arc very much, and another one Voltaire...So she starts sniffing around in the museum, with the help of her friend Charlotte, whose boyfriend is one of Igor's assistants - and when Igor sees Charlotte for the first time, he immediately sees her in his mind's eye as his lost favorite 'Marie Antoinette'...This unforgettable movie, apart from the color-technical innovation that practically led straight to the movies that we are used to nowadays, has literally got EVERYTHING: an unusual, creepy story (which would be imitated quite some times later on), a PERFECT cast and crew, a most 'real' kind of horror (not scientific this time, as in "Doctor X", but dealing with the sometimes narrow borders between genius and insanity, even leading to criminality...) - and, as a contrast, a most lively, realistic and funny depiction of the crazy world of reporters and newsrooms! And besides that, it can be clearly identified as a pre-Code movie, with features like Igor's drug-addicted helper and Florence's quite open talking about men (a year later, the film would never have been granted a seal...) - "Mystery of the Wax Museum" is certainly one of the greatest, most perfect and most memorable of ALL classic Hollywood movies.

sddavis63 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)