User reviews

The House of Wax is a true horror classic! I saw it for the first time in 1953 at a local theatre in 3-D.

I have seen it many times since on video. It never ceases to entertain.

While watching it today I noticed something for the very first time: a most interesting anachronism.

This film takes place in old New York circa 1900. Every indoor scene has a gaslight in it, and the fire department responds with a horse-drawn wagon. Well, in one of the early scenes in the film Prof. Jarrod(Vincent Price)is conducting a prospective investor, Sidney Wallace(Paul Cavanagh), on a tour of his wax museum. There are gas lights everywhere. They arrive at an exhibit and Prof. Jarrod flips a wall switch, and presto the exhibit is illuminated in light. Somebody goofed!

If you've never seen The House of Wax, watch it. You'll love it.

One more interesting note. Dabbs Greer who plays Sergeant Jim Shane in this film also plays old Paul Edgecomb in the 1999 thriller The Green Mile.

Perhaps I've been lucky. I've only seen this film twice in the past 15 years, but both times were in 3D, the second time last night. The crowd just loved it, with a big round of applause at the end.

The paddle ball scene is a highlight, but the reprise of the paddle ball is even more hilarious. It's completely over the top, and helps to create the carnival atmosphere that makes the film so effective in a large group.

The really dramatic 3D effects in this film are played for laughs, and I think that's one of the keys to its overall success. Director André De Toth treats the gimmick as a gimmick, and doesn't try to get more out of it than that. Hitchcock, in "Dial M For Murder", tried to use the technology for dramatic effect, but that was a complete failure. The gimmick gets in the way of real drama. The attempted murder of Grace Kelly in "Dial M" is more shocking in 2D. In 3D, you're completely jolted out of your involvement in the scene when Grace's grasping hand comes lunging halfway out into the audience at you.

In "House of Wax", the effect found its real home, a melodramatic thriller, played by everyone with tongue firmly in cheek.

De Toth composes his shots really nicely, I think. There's some foregrounding of chandeliers and other props, but never too much. He mostly holds back on the effect until he can make the best use of it -- the paddle ball, the can-can dancer's round bottom, the bust of Charles Bronson at the end. There is one great 3D thrill, the shot where Bronson, playing Vincent Price's evil mute assistant, has to grapple with policeman Frank Lovejoy. Bronson appears to leap out of the audience and onto the screen; it's an unexpected moment, and a real treat.

For me, House of Wax is a very good movie, but I am not sure if it is Price's best horror film. I did prefer the Corman-Price-Poe collaborations Pit and the Pendulum, The Raven, The Fall of the House of Usher and especially The Masque of the Red Death. The story occasionally loses bite and Phyllis Kirk is a rather bland female lead(though in all fairness her character is as well). Conversely, the Gothic sets look gorgeous and add a real sensual beauty to a lot of scenes. The photography is just as lavish. On the subject of visuals, I had the pleasure of watching House of Wax in 3D, I am not a fan of 3D and find it distracts from the film and doesn't focus on the story enough. In the case of House of Wax however, not only does the 3D look good, but it enhances the scares without making them gimmicky. Igor appearing to have leapt out of the audience was a standout. House of Wax is fine in 2D, but even better in 3D in my view, and I thought I'd never say that. The music is haunting and robust, the writing is sharp and the story is suspenseful and mostly exciting. There are some very effective scenes, such as the sight of the figure in the cloak, Jarrod chasing Sue down the alleyways(pure suspense and horror), the murders especially that of Jarrod's partner, the heart-breaking scene where Jarrod tries in vain to save his wax works and Sue strapped nude on the table in the climax. The wax works are very creepy as well. The pace is brisk and the direction handles the atmosphere very well. The performances are very good on the whole, Carolyn Jones went on to do better things but is interesting to see. Frank Lovejoy is great at just playing it straight, Reggie Rymal provides another of the 3D's finest moments with the paddle-ball and Charles Bronson is wonderfully creepy even without uttering a word. Best of all is Vincent Price in his first array into horror and for me still one of his best roles, his make-up is exceptional and he is very malevolent and sympathetic, a type of role that always saw him at his best. Looking at him also, you'd never guess that it was his first horror role, he looks as though he'd done it for years beforehand. In conclusion, a very good film and a great 3D experience. 8/10 Bethany Cox

My great uncle was in this movie, being the barker. Watch this movie and get out of the way of his ''tricks''. His name was Reggie Rymal. I'm Larry...

My uncle was an entertainer and comedian in the early 1950s and was well known for his paddle-ball skills. He performed standup comedy and paddle-ball at hotels around the country. He appeared on many television shows during the early days of TV including "The Eddie Cantor Show, You Asked For It, and Ladies Choice.

I have always felt he was chosen for this movie due to the contribution in content for the 3-D effects. He was simply an amazing guy.

In 1900, in New York, Prof. Henry Jarrod (Vincent Price) is an artist, sculpting masterpieces in wax and exposing them in a small and non-profitable museum. When his partner Matthew Burke (Roy Roberts) proposes a criminal fire to receive the insurance, Henry does not accept and fights with him. Henry is knocked out, left in the burning place and considered dead by the insurance company. When Matthew receives the insurance money, a disfigured man kills him, and later many corpses vanish from the city morgue. The crippled Prof. Henry Jarrod reappears in a wheelchair and destroyed hands, preparing the grand-opening of his wax museum. Meanwhile, Sue Allen (Phyllis Kirk) is impressed with the resemblance of statue of Joan of Arc with her friend Cathy Gray (Carolyn Jones), who was killed and her corpse was missing, and she suspects that her body was covered by wax.

"House of Wax" is good, but also an absolutely unnecessary remake of Michael Curtiz's "Mystery of the Wax Museum", which is better resolved. There are many scenes and dialogs that are identical, and this remake does not add any value to the original movie. Vincent Price performs a creepy character and the movement of his body is one of the greatest differences in this remake. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Museu de Cera" ("Wax Museum")

HOUSE OF WAX

Aspect ratio: 1.37:1 (Natural Vision 3-Dimension)

Sound format: WarnerPhonic Sound

Though BWANA DEVIL (1952) was clearly responsible for kickstarting the 3-D boom of the 1950's, it's doubtful the fad would have survived for long had it not been for Andre de Toth's HOUSE OF WAX, ballyhooed by Warner Bros. as: "The BIG 3-D feature you've been waiting for!" The studio's confidence is borne out by the film itself, a sensational - and sensationalized - remake of Michael Curtiz's MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM (1933), in which sculptor and wax museum curator Vincent Price is driven insane after being disfigured in a fire set by his greedy business partner (Roy Roberts), eager to reap the benefits of a generous insurance policy. Using a wax mask to conceal his true appearance, Price makes short work of Roberts and reopens his museum in New York, where he steals fresh cadavers and uses them as the human framework for his gruesome exhibits, only to be rumbled by heroine Phyllis Kirk when her recently-murdered friend (Carolyn Jones) turns up as part of the Joan of Arc exhibit...

With its handsome period art direction - the movie is set in 1902 - and no-nonsense screenplay, this was clearly designed as one of Warner's major attractions for 1953, above and beyond the film's technical achievements. Today, the storyline may seem a little predictable, even for those unfamiliar with Curtiz's original, but the narrative unfolds at a rapid clip and contains more than a few hair-raising set-pieces, most notably the opening fire sequence (in which Price looms uncomfortably close to the raging inferno); the discovery of Roberts' corpse in an elevator shaft; Price's cloaked villain stealing a corpse from the morgue at midnight and pursuing Kirk through the fog-shrouded streets; and the climactic face-off around a vat of boiling wax. There's even a chorus of dancing girls (watch out for those legs!), along with a couple of ferocious fight scenes which - literally! - erupt from the screen! Price achieved lasting fame as a consequence of the film's box office success - he was quickly snared by Columbia for their own 3-D horror feature, THE MAD MAGICIAN (1954), sealing his fate as one of Hollywood's premier boogeymen - but except for the scenes in which he appears as a malformed ghoul, his performance is too restrained to be entirely effective, and the same could be said of virtually all the principal players. Only Jones (later TV's Morticia Addams) as Kirk's giggling, gold-digging best friend and Paul Cavanagh (THE FOUR SKULLS OF JONATHAN DRAKE) as the unwitting patron of Price's latest venture make much of an impression, while Frank Lovejoy and Dabbs Greer are the hard-working cops whose suspicions lead to the villain's downfall. However, while the characters may be bland and unremarkable, the film succeeds by virtue of its spectacle, and recent festival screenings (to celebrate 50 years since the first 3-D boom) have been sold out on every occasion, reaffirming its enduring appeal as one of the finest movies of its kind.

Reviewers often claim the film is 'just as good' when screened flat, and while there's no denying the production's many virtues, the 3-D version is a REVELATION! Using the dual-camera Natural Vision format developed by Milton and Julian Gunzberg (first used in BWANA DEVIL the year before), cinematographers Bert Glennon and J. Peverell Marley use the process to emphasize depth in every sequence, framing each shot to highlight the angles in Stanley Fleischer's careful set designs. For commercial reasons, de Toth includes a number of crowd-pleasing off-the-screen effects (Reggie Rymal's infamous paddle-ball is the most fondly-remembered), though the film doesn't overplay it's hand in this respect. Contemporary audiences were startled out of their seats during a climactic sequence in which Bronson looms out of the FOREGROUND to attack hero Paul Picerni, one of several passages created specifically with 3-D in mind, and which are rendered completely ineffective and/or pointless in flat versions. Viewing the film minus its dimensional effects is like watching a pan-scan edition of a widescreen movie, in which half the entertainment value has been cruelly revoked.

Warner Bros. also used "House" to inaugurate their short-lived WarnerPhonic Sound system, which added an even greater dimension to proceedings. Multichannel sound wasn't a new concept at the time (Disney had used the Fantasound process as early as 1940 for FANTASIA, for instance), but it WAS decidedly rare in mass market features (THIS IS CINERAMA introduced a 7-track process in 1952, but Cinerama was a non-starter for regular movie houses). And while most theaters played the movie in standard optical mono, lucky patrons who attended engagements in major metropolitan areas enjoyed "The first phenomenal merger of 3-D action! 3-D color! and 3-D sound!", as per the ads. Sadly, the WarnerPhonic tracks have since been lost, and current multichannel versions feature a remix of the mono elements by Chace Stereo, no more than a fair approximation of the original material.

I've never been a particularly big fan of Vincent Price, but I'll give credit where credit is due. "House of Wax" is a very good movie, with a few scenes that make you jump even though they're not all that frightening (think of the guillotine slicing down just a moment too late to cut off Andrews' head) and a general sense of creepiness throughout, heightened by the fact that much of the action takes place in that most creepy of places - a wax museum, where even in the most normal of circumstances you're surrounded by these very lifelike creations. That setting was used to very good effect. The performances in the movie were of a pretty high calibre, and the story was generally a lot of fun. There wasn't a great deal not to like in this.

Price played Professor Henry Jarrod. This was an interesting character, who makes a 180 degree turn in the course of the movie. As it opens, he's a gentle sculptor - a lover of beauty who creates beauty out of wax and avoids the strategy of many wax artists by refusing to depict scenes of horror and violence. The result, though, is that his museum gets little business, and his business partner finally burns the place down after a struggle with Jarrod in order to get the insurance money. But Jarrod - though he was trapped in the building and horribly burned - survives, and having gone mad as a result of his experience, he becomes a master sculptor of violence - this time using real human bodies as the foundations for his wax creations. Price pulled off both sides of Jarrod's character wonderfully. You feel some sympathy even the evil Jarrod, because you know he's gone mad - this isn't really him or what he was like. The beautiful girl who's required in these movies is here played by an actress named Phyllis Kirk, better known for television roles, but never really well known. As Sue Allen, Kirk transforms as well - from a sort of plain-Jane type (who's uncomfortable in a music hall watching dancing girls who show off their legs) at the start of the film to a very beautiful woman who becomes Jarrod's choice to be Marie Antoinette in his new house of horrors. The movie has a very suspenseful turn after Sue is captured by Jarrod, who's prepared to coat her still living body in boiling wax. Those scenes are interesting; Kirk becomes a vaguely erotic subject to be honest. This was 1953. It's never pictured, of course, but Sue is clearly naked on the table as the wax is being prepared. The various shots of her struggling against her restraints are clearly intended to make that point.

This is an enjoyable movie; one of the better that I've seen of Vincent Price's work. I chuckled quietly when I discovered that one of Jarrod's assistants in his house of horrors was a deaf mute named Igor. Does every mad doctor (even a mad sculptor) need an Igor? Could anything have been more cliché? But that was just amusing. It didn't detract from the movie at all. (7/10)

House of Wax was one of the few films made in 3D which was a huge success. This may have more to do with the fact that it had a good, strong story and great acting and did not rely solely upon it's 3D special effects.

The late great Vincent Price is Henry Jarrod, a sweet and dedicated artist who creates lifelike mannequins for a wax museum. His statues - depicting everyone from Marie Antoinette & Joan of Arc to John Wilkes Booth - are loved by Henry as much as if they were his own children. When he objects to creating more horrific sculptures to attract more paying customers, his partner sets the museum on fire, hoping to collect a tidy sum in insurance money. Henry supposedly perishes in the flames, trying in vain to rescue his beloved wax friends in a scene which is truly heartbreaking. Some time later, Henry reappears, wheelchair bound and just a tad bitter. He has opened a new wax museum which features realistic scenes of murder and horror, many of them taken from current headlines. Unfortunately, some of them are just a little TOO realistic: one looks like Henry's ex-partner, who was found hanging in an elevator shaft. Was it really a suicide, or something more sinister? Joan of Arc bears a striking resemblance to Cathy Gray, a young girl who has gone missing from her room. And Cathy's friend Sue looks exactly like the lost Marie Antoinette, the pride and joy of Henry's former exhibit. Soon, a horribly scarred monster is chasing Sue through the foggy night time streets. Can the police, and Sue's artistic young suitor, solve the mystery in time? Or will Sue wind up as yet another display in the House of Wax?

This is a wonderful, creepy scare-fest with great sets, beautiful colors and strong performances. Vincent Price as Henry Jarrod is both lovable and horrifying as the kind man driven mad. Charles Bronson, in a very early role, is super freaky as Henry's mute and morbid assistant. Carolyn Jones (in her pre-Morticia Addams days) is blond, pretty Cathy, the squeaky opportunist with the heart of gold. Phyllis Kirk is the sensible Sue, a slightly uptight but genuinely believable victim. The scene where she must run through the deserted, fog-soaked streets is very, convincingly creepy. When Sue actually stops long enough to remove her noisy and cumbersome high heeled shoes, which give away her every step on the cobblestone road, I very nearly applauded. The 3D effects are an added bonus to an already wonderfully fun movie - watch for the classic paddle ball scene!

This is one of Price's best starring role films. It is everything that a good horror film should be - funny without being ridiculous, scary without the gore and fantastical without being far fetched. 10 stars!!! Don't miss it!

"Professor" Henry Jarrod (Vincent Price) is a sculptor who works in wax. He's living in New York City in the late 19th Century, and he's displaying his handiwork in a wax museum. When his partner, Matthew Burke (Roy Robert)--really his primary investor--balks at Jarrod's receipts and tries to talk him into moving in a more commercial direction, perhaps with a "Chamber of Horrors", Jarrod protests that he's creating meticulous works of art, not cheap sensationalism. Jarrod tries to interest a new investor, but when the prospect says he can't make a decision for a few months, Burke says he can't wait. He suggests torching the place and collecting the insurance money. When Jarrod refuses, Burke torches the museum anyway, and the two fight. Jarrod supposedly dies in the fire, leaving Burke to collect. However, when a mysterious, disfigured stranger shows up, the resolution may not be so simple.

The debate that Jarrod and Burke have in the opening scene of this remake of Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933) is particularly ironic in light of the film's history. House of Wax was made as a 3D film--a fact made more than obvious from the film's opening credits, which are presented in a font made to look like it is bursting forth from the screen.

In the early 1950s, movie theater box office receipts were down because of television. Film studios and movie theaters were looking for gimmicks that would make films seem more special. They were looking to do things that television couldn't do. According to film editor Rudi Fehr, "The House of Wax was made because the theaters were empty, people were staying home to watch television. In order to lure the audiences back to the theaters, Warner's came out with 3D." While this wasn't the first commercial 3D film--1952's Bwana Devil holds that honor, this was certainly one of the more popular ones.

Studio head Jack Warner told Fehr that he would have five weeks to edit the film after shooting was done. Fehr said they could get it done even quicker if director Andre De Toth would shoot the film in sequence. So Warner demanded just that, despite De Toth's protests. Shooting in sequence is unusual and can make the on-set crew's job much more difficult. But it certainly didn't negatively affect the performances or De Toth's direction, which are both outstanding despite a couple strangely truncated bits of exposition.

Like many 3D films, there are a few shots in House of Wax that might otherwise be inexplicable. The most prominent example here is a huckster who stands in front of the revamped House of Wax doing tricks with three paddleballs. We linger on him much longer than we normally would so that he can bounce the ball into our face. This shows part of the difficulty of 3D--it's difficult to reconcile the most impressive effects from the audience's perspective with narrative needs. Viewed now, in simple 2D on a television screen, the obligatory 3D shots of House of Wax play as quirky, campy curios. For me, that adds to the charm of the film.

Price has an unusual role here in that he plays a good portion of the film with disfigurement makeup, half-limping, hunched over, covered in bulky black cloaks in a manner that somewhat prefigures John Hurt's turn as John Merrick in The Elephant Man (1980). De Toth is excellent at building atmosphere, especially in the "external" shots, which frequently feel more like we're watching a version of the Jack the Ripper story set in London.

Most of the script by Crane Wilbur, based on a play by Charles Belden (which also served as the basis for 1933's Mystery of the Wax Museum, of course), is deliciously flagitious--degenerate in a more over the top manner than was usual for the period. The conflagration at the end of the opening is particularly unexpected and twisted, as is Jarrod's modus operandi throughout the film. It's only too bad that the self-enforced Hollywood "moral code" at the time could not have allowed for a more nihilistic ending. I for one was cheering on Jarrod and his assistant Igor, played by none other than Charles Bronson in one of his earlier roles, when he was still using "Charles Buchinsky".

Although it's difficult to say whether Belden, Wilbur or De Toth intended a message or subtext, it's easy to read a number of interesting angles into the film. To begin, the use of the name "Igor" for the assistant suggests a number of twisted turnabouts on Dr. Frankenstein. Jarrod is even more depraved than the good doctor as he "creates death" out of life, in the service of art. At least it seems depraved if you're not an artist. If you are, you might simply note that one must suffer to be beautiful. That's more than just a flippant remark, as Jarrod suffers financially for beauty early in the film, and Cathy Gray (Carolyn Jones) suffers physically for beauty as she nearly suffocates herself to make herself thin. And of course there's the literal, sinister sense in which the artist makes others suffer to create his beauty. There are also very interesting subtexts available related to goals of realism in art, and of course, the ironic messages noted earlier in the beginning of the film, where we are debating aesthetics versus financial, or more material considerations.

Although House of Wax was popular at the box office in 1953, there was no shortage of critical devaluations of the film as a cheap gimmick, and no shortage of complaints about image quality and eyestrain when trying to view the film in 3D. 3D was only prominent for another year or so (to make periodic returns later, often for "number 3" films in series), but House of Wax is a much better film than it was given credit for at the time. It's not Vincent Price's best, but it's well worth viewing.

This is a famous film for its pioneering use of 3-D , and the most popular the era in this format , a status it retains today . An associate burns down a wax museum with the owner (Vincent Price as a wax-dummy maker , this role launched on his terror film cycle , especially for Roger Corman) inside, but he survives only to become vengeful and murderous . As the deranged sculptor rebuilds his fire-destroyed showplace , as he creates a sinister wax museum which showcases amazing figures . The sculptor after a disfiguring face resorts to murder , strange experiments and installs wax-covered corpses . When he meets his new assistant's nice friend, Sue Allen , (Phyllis Kirk , though Joan Weldon and Vera Miles were both contenders for the role of Sue Allen ; Phyllis said that she had "no fond memories" of working with Charles Bronson) he knows he's found the perfect model .

This is an remake of the early horror flick and one of the 50s most popular 3-D films and it was the first film released with a stereophonic soundtrack . This is a chiller story with grisly horror , genuine thrills and shocks . This was reportedly Warner Brothers' one of the biggest success and the first 3-D color movie ever to be produced by a major American studio . The eerie story contains bit good fun with killings , chilling interpretations , relentless horror and thrilling events . The chiller version of the 50s packs scary chills and terrifying deaths . The wax figures are the real stars of this production , being rightly realized . Some scenes are clumsily shot but the movie has some good moments here and there , the illogical parts in the argument are more than compensated for the excitement provided by the creepy wax models , eerie killers and many other things . This one stills has the power to give the audience the creeps , thanks to another extraordinary acting by Vincent Price . Fine support cast such as Frank Lovejoy , Charles Bronson credited as Charles Buchinsky, Angela Clarke , Roy Roberts , Paul Cavanagh , Carolyn ¨Morticia Adams¨as a victim and Nedrick Young, who plays the alcoholic assistant Leon, was uncredited because he had been blacklisted during the McCarthy "Red scare" era in Hollywood . Rousing and suspenseful original music by David Buttolph . Colorful as well as glimmer cinematography with brilliant colors by Bert Glennon . This creepy and gory horror movie was professionally by director André De Toth - who was blind in one eye and hence could not see the effect . Andre De Toth was a classical director , Western usual (Indian fighter, Man in the saddle, Ramrod , Last of Comanches , The stranger wore a gun), but also made Peplum (Gold for the Caesar) and adventure (The Mongols , Morgan the pirate , Tanganyika) .

Other films dealing with ¨House of wax¨ are the followings : 1933 vintage horror classic and rarely seen ¨Mystery of the wax museum¨ , here main starring was a heroin addict but that had to be changed for the remake, it was starred by Lionel Atwill , Fay Wray , Glenda Farrell ; ¨Terror in the Wax Museum¨ (1973) by George Fenady with Ray Milland , Elsa Lanchester , Maurice Evans , John Carradine , Patrick Knowles , ¨Waxwork¨ (1988) by Anthony Hickcock with Zach Galligan , Joe Baker , Deborah Foreman , Michelle Johnson , David Warner . And modern retelling ¨House of wax¨ by Jaume Collet-Serra with Elisa Cuthbert , Jared Padalecki , Paris Hilton and Chad Murray .

Henry Jarrod is a very talented sculptor of wax figures for a museum. But as the museum starts to flounder, Jarrod's partner, Matthew Burke, insists on taking a new direction, a row ensues and Jarrod is knocked unconscious. Burke seizes the opportunity to torch the museum and get the insurance money, with Jarrod still in the premises. Thought long since dead, Jarrod resurfaces, apparently wheel chair bound and with horribly burned hands. Opening up a new museum, his new figures (made by his protégé under his instruction) look ever more lifelike than before, could he be responsible for some despicable crimes in the area?

This marvellous film is a remake of the 1933 chiller, The Mystery Of The Wax Museum, directed by Michael Curtiz. Here this film is taken on by Andre de Toth, originally filmed in 3-D with the then bonus addition of Warner Phonic Sound, it's a picture that thankfully holds up real well even in its basic flat format. The reason it does hold up well is because director de Toth didn't get carried away with the gimmick, it's used sparingly so the narrative never gets lost amongst any trickery, and thus House Of Wax's excellently creepy story comes to the fore.

Having the ever supreme Vincent Price as your leading man (Jarrod) will always help your horror genre picture, and here he two folds the performance brilliantly. At first his Jarrod is charming and carrying a grace about his dedication to his craft, but then, devilment takes control as Price pumps creepy ardour into Jarrod's fractured mind. Quite a turn from Price who most definitely suffered for his art during the shoot, forced to do his own stunts (the 3D process needs more than one camera), he was involved in an accident that set him on fire and almost saw him crushed!Then there was the long and often painful make up sessions to get the desired effects of a burns victim, layers of rubber strangling his skin to the point of passing out, oh yes Vincent earned his money on this one!

We even get one of the earliest credited performances from Charles Bronson (here under his real name of Buchinsky) as Jarrod's assistant Igor, whilst fans of The Addams Family TV series will no doubt enjoy the performance of future Mortica, Carolyn Jones. The film was a big success on its release, and hugely popular with critics, and it's not hard to see why, because today it still stands proud as one of the finest exponents of classic horror, both as a story and as a technical construction. 9/10

I saw this movie because my father told me of a horror movie which scared the heck out of him and his friends when he was 16 years old... that movie turned out to be a Vincent Price movie... this one. After much searching, we finally found the film, and so we sat down to see the movie. He saw it in order to find out if he would still be scared by it, after all these years... I saw it in order to find out if it was really that good. My father tends to have great taste in movies, but occasionally he just gets drawn in by a theme or plot that he loves, and forget to think about the quality of the film. I must admit, I hadn't expected that much from the film... I was surprised by how effective and exciting it was. I haven't seen too many movies featuring Vincent Price, but now I may just have to. His acting was the best in the movie and he stole the show for every scene he was in. The plot is pretty good, though the story is pretty much just a reworking of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde(gentleman by day, monster by night) with a wax museum curator instead of a doctor. The pacing is very good. I was hardly bored for a second during the whole movie, which is surprising for such an old film. The acting is decent, with Price being the only actor to truly transcend above mediocrity with his performance. The characters are well-written and credible, with a few glaringly obvious exceptions(you'll know them when you see them). The dialog is fairly well-written and interesting, not long-winded and dull as one might expect from a slightly unknown horror film from that time period. I can't help but compare much of the dialog to the dialog of more modern films, and immediately see that this film(among others) has had an impact on film-making that is still clearly visible today. That's quite impressive, I think. Only a few other films can claim that. The horror and suspense in the film is quite good, and there are plenty of genuine(unforced) scares in the film... Vincent Price really brings the character alive, and few have managed to startle me as much as him. The makeup work was quite impressive as well, considering the time it was made. The film has a few nods to Hitchcock, but they might have been coincidental. For such an old horror film, it's really good. It's rarely dull, has some good scares and the story is pretty good too. And if for nothing else, watch the film for Price's great performance. I recommend it to most fans of horror movies, as long as you keep in mind when the film was made. Don't expect too many intense cuts or a particularly original story. The base of the story is basically the story of Jekyll and Hyde. Keep that in mind, and you'll probably enjoy the film immensely, as I did. 7/10

HOUSE OF WAX established Vincent Price as a horror film icon. He's never hammy here. He's best when describing gruesome details (like torture or murder) with a slight grin, as if he's building to a punchline. Crane Wilbur's screenplay has well researched details (regarding how wax sculpting works, the effects of chemical burns for example) improves on the 1933 original. Here Vincent Price plays Henry Jerrod, a wax sculptor whose first try at a wax museum meets the same infernal end as Atwill's museum in the first film. 12 years later, Jerrod opens a new museum. One of his intern sculptors dates a model, Sue (Phyllis Kirk) who is hounded by a mysterious man with a distorted face. In the original film version, made in 1933, Fay Wray plays a beautiful, but uninteresting damsel in distress. Phyllis Kirk fills Fay Wray's part here, and man, is she even more boring! But don't worry, you have plenty of Vincent to make this DVD worthwhile. It's easy to find in a bit part, young Charles Bronson (billed here as Charles Buchinsky) as one of Jerrod's s interns. HOUSE OF WAX's most famous element is that it was made in 3-D. This new gimmick, meant to lure television viewers back to the box office was novel, but it had it's kinks. (Warner Brothers improved the process a year later with the 3-D release of Hitchcock's DIAL M FOR MURDER, and yet another period horror film, PHANTOM OF THE RUE MORGUE.) The most amusing 3-D moment in HOUSE OF WAX has almost nothing to do with the story. A carnival barker, (played with crowd-pleasing energy by Reggie Rymal) constantly whacks a paddle-ball outside the wax museum, while heralding the museum's opening night thrills. He faces the camera (meaning us) and says `You! With the popcorn. Hold still.' and he proceeds to repeatingly whack the ball at the camera. HOUSE OF WAX is a lot of fun, and was a big hit at the time. The DVD does not come with a 3-D Process, but it does come with coverage of HOUSE OF WAX's Hollywood Premier. It's attended by Bela Lugosi and friend, Jack Warner, and Ronald Reagan (See, even Presidents watch horror movies!)

One of the most striking things about "House of Wax" is how uncannily it resembles the early outings of Hammer Studios (whose films were subsequently distributed by Warner Bros., as well)--period setting, fantastic production design, and a generally old-fashioned approach to horror; even today, it is brilliant to watch for aesthetic purposes alone. While lacking Hammer's dynamic duo of Cushing and Lee, we are given something just as good: Vincent Price, the loopy curator of a wax museum, who is supposedly torched in a fire as his business associate wants to collect the insurance money; later, Price re-emerges with a revived museum exhibiting scenes of historical violence. Andre de Toth's directorial style clearly had an influence on the likes of Hammer veterans Terence Fisher and Freddie Francis, but it is Price's compelling, darkly humorous performance that lies at the center of this "House." Without him, it would easily lose its well-sculpted edge. (One major complaint: the inclusion of seemingly needless scenes of leg-kicking and paddle-ball-playing to exhibit the film's then-innovative "3-D" gimmick.)

Like fellow Hungarian Michael Curtiz twenty years earlier, Andre De Toth also tackled Charles Bledden's stage play The Wax Works. His treatment differed from the 1933 version in emphasizing horror rather than mystery. The legendary Vincent Price plays Professor Henry Jarrod, a master wax sculptor whose studio is burnt down by his greedy business partner to collect the insurance money. Vincent Price is excellent as usual and of course his presence can only add to the film. The script is more lucid and in fact the complaint that there is no mystery left is correct, but that is the way it was intended.

The Technicolor photography is good but certainly not as unique as those of the once lost masterpiece, Mystery of the Wax Museum. The same is true for the sets (at least the early London portion). There is a small role for a deaf mute played by one Charles Buchinsky, who later changed his surname to Bronson. He is virtually unrecognizable in this early role. In comparing House of Wax and Mystery of the Wax Museum, I would say House of Wax has a better script and star-performer in Vincent Price but Mystery has a more beautiful visual look and the 'scream queen' of the 30's Fay Wray as Jarrod's Marie Antoinette.

Professor Henry Jarrod (Vincent Price) refuses to sensationalize his wax museum like all the others. His meticulous work is second to none but his business partner Matthew Burke wants better attendance. Jarrod refuses to lower his high brow historical recreations and tries to get Sidney Wallace to buy out Burke in 3 months. Burke needs the money now and burns down the building for the $25k insurance. Jarrod refuses and tries to stop Burke. Jarrod is believed to have died in the fire but the insurance takes a long time to settle without Jarrod's body. Just as they give him the $25k, Jarrod is killed by a deformed man who steals the money. The deformed man kills Jarrod's superficial girlfriend Cathy Gray and almost kills her sweet best friend Sue Allen. Police detective Lt. Brennan investigates. The deformed man then steals Cathy's body from the morgue. Jarrod reconnects with Wallace looking for investment to reopen a new exhibition with all the grotesque violence that the public is looking for.

This is touted as one of the early big 3-D movies. Although I didn't see it in 3-D, this has the prerequisite puddle ball 3-D effect. I'm sure that is loads of fun but this movie is even more than that. It's a good mass killer movie. Vincent Price is great even stuck in a wheelchair for most of the movie. The story is compelling and a fun house of horrors. It even has a bit of humor although mostly due to its campiness.

I saw the remake recently of House of Wax and mainly that was because I just wanted to see Paris Hilton die once and for all! I was a satisfied customer, but the movie actually turned out to be pretty good, so I was very curious to see the original, especially since I love Vincent Price. Who wouldn't love him? He's the king of B-Horror Movies. He has brought us House of Wax, the original haunting tale of an artist who went too far to create his works of art.

Henry Jarrod is an artist who has devoted his life to his wax museum, but when his partner is upset with the investment and wishing it had better success, he offers to burn the place down and split the insurance money with Henry. But Henry refuses, his partner goes through with it by burning the place down and knocking Henry unconscious and leaving him for dead. But a little while later, his partner convinces the insurance company that Henry is dead and collects the insurance money, but things start to happen like the partner dies but it looks like suicide and Cathy's, our leading lady, best friend is murdered by a horribly disfigured man and her best friend's body disappears only to happen to look like a figure of Henry's new exhibit.

House of Wax maybe be tame by today's standards, but just think of the time, no one ever thought in a million years of something this horrific. A sick artist taking our corpses or killing us just because we would inspire him, it's a scary thought. Vincent Price added so much horror and beauty to this picture that will never be forgotten once you have seen it.

8/10

"House of Wax" hit theatres in 1953, right in the middle of the 3-D craze. Bafflingly, for this 3-D project Warner Brothers chose director André De Toth, who was blind in one eye, thus unable to fully appreciate his own film's visuals. It seems to have worked out, though, since the movie is today considered a minor classic.

The movie is a remake of the 1933 Michael Curtiz film "Mystery of the Wax Museum", which is itself notable as an early use of the Technicolor process. The story concerns a gifted sculptor (Vincent Price) whose prized creations are lost when his business partner sets his studio ablaze for the insurance money. Left to perish in the fire, the sculptor narrowly escapes but is hideously scarred by the ordeal (both mentally and physically). Soon, he opens a new wax museum to instant success but his methods are called into question by an inquisitive young woman.

The inimitable Vincent Price deserves a lot of the credit for the film's success. He lends a touch of class to the proceedings, though he does ham it up from time to time as well. The rest of the cast is no better than adequate, with Carolyn Jones contributing a particularly irritating performance. But, hey, at least the movie's got a young Charles Bronson in a supporting role.

The film's 3-D effects mostly amount to gimmickry. The needless insertion of scenes that serve merely to showcase these effects end up hurting a script that wasn't that great to begin with. That being said, the film does achieve a sense of eeriness at times and the story is satisfying in the end.

Ultimately, "House of Wax" is worth watching though it's by no means perfect. The film deserves to be remembered both for its content and its status as a curio of a bygone era in filmmaking.

It is the heyday of wonder and it is no surprise it's roots are in Paris. In the dark lonely alleys, amid the wet streets of the heart of the city, a dark cloaked figure follows a beautiful woman. To say she is beautiful is to understate her natural qualities, but to further add that such beauty has attracted the most sinister and diabolical madman in Paris is also understating the danger or his intent. Such is background of the incredible black story entitle; "The House of Wax." Vincent Price, plays Prof. Henry Jarrod an artistic genius who boosts his collection of famous, historical wax-works, are the most unique in all the world. It is no idle boost, as his house contains more than just legendary wax figures from the pages of history, they also contain enough secrets that police Lt. Tom Brennan (Frank Lovejoy) finds more than interesting. Together with Sgt. Jim Shane (Dabbs Greer) there is more sinister mystery in the museum than either suspect. Price plays his role to the hilt as does his dutiful side kick " Igor" (Charles Bronsen) which audience will instantly recognize. Together they terrify audience while preparing their evil craft. On completion, they seek their prize, the beloved French beauty, Marie Antoinette, who is to be their crowning achievement. ****

It's actually so this movie works out better than the 1933 original, due to the fact that this movie is more being an horror. It has the right style and ingredients and gets supported by a great story and cast.

Basically this movie has everything in it a typical good '50's horror production should need. But what makes this movie better to watch than just the average genre movie entry from the same era is its compelling story, that perhaps is not typical horror-wise. It's also a bit of a tragic story with a tragic main character, just like is the case in "Phantom of the Opera", which is also an excellent horror story.

Yet the movie foremost remains an horror, much more than was the case with the original. In this movie the 'monster' or murderer is showed with his face already very early on in the movie. He does a lot more evil. Also with Vincent Price you have a great and classy villainous main character, who can act with any material.

Also look out for the still very young Charlies Bronson in a non-speaking role. He used to play lots of roles early in his career before really breaking through in the '60's.

The movie also has a great atmosphere that perhaps is a bit more classy than usual is the case with an '50's genre movie. Or this perhaps is also due to the fact that this movie has a better and more compelling story than usual, which uplifts the movie on basically every level. Funny fun about this movie as well is that this was the first ever 3-D movie. It's probably also part of the reason why this movie became such an huge financial success for the Warner Bros. Studios.

A great genre movie from the '50's!

8/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

this film is inspired by 1933's The Mystery of The House of Wax.many scenes are identical and some of the dialogue is verbatim,but this version is much more fleshed out,both story wise,and character wise.it's also on a grander scale.however,for me,most of the characters were not that interesting,and there were no real standout performances as there were in original version.there was more excitement and suspense in this one,though.unfortunately in my mind,there are a few scenes of filler,or at least what seems like filler to me.one unfortunate aspect of this version is that it was filmed in 3D,but the DVD version is not,so in some scenes,it's clear they existed for the 3D value,but have little point here.i didn't find it scary,but it certainly was macabre and morbid.all in all,not a bad movie,but not quite as good as its inspiration. 5/10