In 1932, Charles S. Belden wrote a short story titled, “The Wax Works.” Although never published, he expanded it as an unproduced play, “The Wax Museum.” A Year Later, Warner Bros. adapted it as a horror film called, “Mystery of the Wax Museum.” It centers around the disappearance of people prompting an investigative reporter to find them in a wax museum curated by a villainous sculptor. Two Decades Later, following WB’s “Bwana Devil” as the first 3-D movie shot in color, they produced another 3-D movie, “House of Wax.” A remake of Mystery of the Wax Museum.
Released in 1953, (same year Ian Fleming’s first James Bond novel Casino Royale published) it received mixed reviews at the time and was a box office hit. Overtime, House of Wax earned later praise for sparking the 3-D movie craze. Five Decades Later, a poorly received remake with Paris Hilton exists. Not kidding, one America’s national embarrassments appeared in a movie produced by Joel Silver. Same guy who produced the “Lethal Weapon” series, “The Matrix” & “V For Vendetta.”
Anyway, it’s Halloween Month. I intend to watch and review horror movies throughout October. Which ones should I review next? Please leave a comment?
It doesn’t matter if SPOILERS are listed. This movie isn’t good as people say.
Polished & Rusty Aspects
Polished: Vincent Price did a good job for his performance.
Cinematography’s shot in stable condition.
Unlike many old horror films from the 1930s-1950s, the First Act properly buildup staging the wax figures and Jarrod’s characterization. You need a spontaneous hook to draw your audience for attention.
Prosthetic Makeup transformed Vincent into a deformed antagonist, Professor Henry Jarrod.
Set Pieces and Costumes were manually created by decorators.
Rusty: Acting is sometimes hokey I couldn’t take it seriously.
Andre de Toth failed to direct. He didn’t double check the script for revisions.
Crane Wilbur didn’t do a good job writing a cohesive story. Act 1 was starting out good. Then, Act 2 gets worse.
Scare Factor lacks bone chilling terror. Old horror films from the 1930s-1950s aren’t scary.
Supporting Cast is forgettable. Not a single one memorable character. I couldn’t find a heroic character to root for. That’s cardinal sin. Not caring for a good guy.
A hokey moment with a random woman passing out upon seeing a man playing with a paddle ball.
Second Act’s straight up boring. Just talky talky. We get it. The wax figures are suspiciously realistic. Nothing happens until Act 3. I was miserably bored. I’d rather play the 2023 remastered edition of “Dead Space.”
At the time House of Wax is one of the earliest movies to pioneer 3-D format.
Fun Facts
- Charles Bronson makes his film debut as a deaf-mute henchman.
- If you own a DVD/Blu-Ray copy, Tim Burton provides audio commentary.
- The reason why this movie was a box office hit was in fact 3-D movies were a trend. Movie goers wanted to see visual trickery popping out of the screen with their own eyes.
Hot Take: I think House of Wax doesn’t deserve to be selected by the Library of Congress for preservation in the National Film Registry.
The Final Verdict: D-
I wanted to like House of Wax, but it didn’t stick the landing. Both the 1953 and 2005 versions are terrible or as Cleveland Brown from “Family Guy” pronounces it as “turrible.” I much prefer 1990s-Modern Horror and J-Horror. Old horror from the 1930-1950s are not my cup of tea. If you wanna both an original and remake of a horror movie almost equally as good as one another, check out both the Japanese and American version of “The Ring.”
