Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

just watch it!

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Yes, it's true. It's a gimmick and I hate it. It could be because having Monocular vision, I can't see it. But I'd rather not be distracted by the silliness. Still, this movie with Vincent Price and Charles Bronson (as his heavy) is worth seeing even without the 3D. A tragic story of a man fueled by revenge, Vincent makes this work. The Wax figures are impressive as is the make up when he reveals himself.

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.

"House of Wax" is an entertaining horror yarn that gave the world the Vincent Price we all know and love. Prior to this highly successful film, Price had been a dependable character actor. "House of Wax" started his second, far more successful career as a villain in such films as "The Abominable Dr. Phibes" and "Masque of the Red Death".Price plays Henry Jarrod, a sculptor and curator of a wax museum in the 19th century. His works depict famous historical figures such as Joan of Arc and Marie Antoinette. An eccentric, he refers to his sculptures as his "friends", but his business partner is only interested in the profit: so much so that he burns the museum down for the insurance money. Jarrod is presumed dead but then shows up again eighteen months later, this time with a new exhibition of works more macabre and even more eerily "lifelike"."House of Wax" is an enjoyable horror film which was first screened in 3D. Look out for the trick where a barker hits his paddle-ball at the the camera, commenting that he's aiming for our popcorn. It also features some nifty sight gags which play on the realism of the sculptures, and perhaps one or two shocking moments. Most shocking to me, however, was hearing afterwards that that was a young Charles Bronson as Jarrod's deaf-mute servant. I had never seen him so young, and looking completely different.

A colourful remake of Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933), with added 3-D gimmick, House of Wax might be a hokey old tale but it is too much fun to not enjoy, especially with star Vincent Price on top form as disfigured wax museum sculptor Prof. Henry Jarrod, who turns to murder to bring life to his exhibits.The film opens with Jarrod offering to buy out his business partner Matthew Burke (Roy Roberts) with help from potential investor Sidney Wallace (Paul Cavanagh); Burke would rather not wait for Wallace to seal the deal, however, and sets fire to the museum to claim on the insurance. Jarrod is presumed killed in the blaze, but returns several months later in a wheelchair to continue his work with help from deaf mute Igor (an early performance from Charles Bronson) and alcoholic criminal Leon (Nedrick Young), using real bodies coated with wax to guarantee realism. When a young woman, Sue Allen (Phyllis Kirk), recognises one of the waxwork figures as her missing friend Cathy (Carolyn 'Morticia Addams' Jones), she goes to the police, who decide to investigate her outlandish story.A lively production with sumptuous visuals, House of Wax is ghoulish, grand guignol fun from start to finish, Price putting in one of his finest performances (he's not nearly as hammy as he is in Roger Corman's Poe movies), with excellent support from a great cast. Director André De Toth keeps a brisk pace and enlivens matters with his use of 3D, objects thrust into the foreground for his viewers' amusement—oh, how I wish that I could see this on the big screen in 3D, but it's still fun to spot these things in 2D. Notable use of 3D includes a row of can can dancers kicking out at the audience and waggling their frilly bloomers, and the House of Wax barker, who uses a bat and ball to perform tricks.House of Wax would go on to be a huge success and inspire several other waxwork themed horrors including Carry On Screaming (1966), anthology-of-sorts Waxwork (1988) and, of course, the inevitable 'remake' House of Wax (2005).7.5/10, rounded up to 8 for IMDb.