Clevercell Very disappointing...

Wordiezett So much average

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Tayyab Torres Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

arfdawg-1 The Plot. In London, sculptor Ivan Igor struggles in vain to prevent his partner Worth from burning his wax museum...and his 'children.' Years later, Igor starts a new museum in New York, but his maimed hands confine him to directing lesser artists. People begin disappearing (including a corpse from the morgue); Igor takes a sinister interest in Charlotte Duncan, fiancée of his assistant Ralph, but arouses the suspicions of Charlotte's roommate, wisecracking reporter Florence.By any estimate, this is not a good film. I'm convinced the good reviews have everything to do with this film being a curio in two strip technicolor.To be honest, this genre would fare far better in black and white.

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.

jarrodmcdonald-1 Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray and Glenda Farrell encounter strange goings-on in two-strip Technicolor. Due to the technology, the blending of green and blue actually gives the story a more appropriately sinister look. But it is all very anachronistic. In several scenes, we are met with Miss Farrell acting more like a depression-era news hound than a reporter from an earlier era. Miss Wray also seems to act and look a little too contemporary. But she is very good, though given less screen time than her female costar (despite Wray having higher billing). Director Michael Curtiz often cuts to medium shots of the characters. He seems to realize that the true ambiance of this story does not depend on dramatic close-ups, but rather emanates from the characters and their space filled with bizarre energy. This does not necessarily involve an overdressed set, which is something that does bog down the remake.

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.