Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Much like Michael Curtiz' other Warners Technicolor film, starring Lionel Atwill and Faye Wray (who establishes her sex appeal and screaming abilities in both films), Dr. X (1932), Mystery of the Wax Museum has a major problem with pacing, a talky script, and quick-talking news reporter trying to rob the horror of the plot with her comic hi-jinx. Glenda Farrell is the chatty, relationship-plagued, and snap-talking reporter, friends with Wray who is dating a sculptor played by Frank McGugh. Similarities to Vincent Price's film include a scrupulous, slimy money-man burning down the wax museum of master sculptor (in this film, the capably understated Atwill who had a way of not hamming it up, showing nuance and ache without overdoing it) to get fire insurance (resulting in the sculptor supposedly having his hands burned and confining him to a wheelchair), the girlfriend of his employee (Wray who once again screams a lot, particularly at the end) eyed by the mad sculptor to be his "new" Antionette "model" (to live immortal), a junkie employee of the sculptor who winds up informing to the police on him, and the finale inside the elaborately designed wax sculpting machine, built to manufacture dead stolen corpses into dummies for the London museum. Where this film fails and the Price film succeeded was in alleviating the snail-crawling lulls that stifle this from being a real gem. Atwill is fine, while Wray is pretty. I'm always a sucker for a horror film set at a wax museum with a mad sculptor, and this one you might call the granddaddy of the genre that produced others like House of Wax, Horrors of the Black Museum, Nightmare in Wax, etc. Too much Farrell, and not enough Atwill, does this film no favors. Insisting to follow the news reporter was a Warner Bros. standard, and so much emphasis on snappy banter between him/her and the cops and news paper editor (and staff) would often deter from the horror plot that us fans were (are) truly interested in. The film is very persistent in showing Farrell always flirting and at odds with her editor- in-chief; the ending where they get together is a bit eye-rolling. There's a subplot involving her and an affluent London playboy (wrongfully arrested and later acquitted in the murder of a woman Atwill steals for his Joan of Arc wax dummy). It is very easy for the attention to drift away from the film as characters talk, talk, talk. The breaking of the wax face to reveal the horrific Max Factor facial burn makeup for Atwill is still potent, even though the synthetic flesh Moon Killer's ugly visage was a bit more pronounced. Once again, the work of art designer Anton Grot doesn't disappoint, particularly when Wray ventures deep into the building of Atwill's museum and workshop. Lots of odd angular architecture. As a film of importance in art / set design and high quality camera work, both Doctor X and Mystery of the Wax Museum fit the bill, and I think horror fans of the classic period should check them out. You will have to sit through a lot of yackety-yak, though, in order to enjoy them. The early color process is quite eyepopping. I think we are fortunate that both Curtiz films were found, still exist, and are available for us to experience anew.I think Price's film better serves justice to the man that ruined the sculptor's life for a little insurance money, trying to recoup a sum for supposedly sinking his money in a lost cause. We get to see the dirtbag get it good in Price's film, while Atwill just balks at the wooden case holding the dead body. Also there's a lot more of burn-face ghoul, night prowler Price than Atwill. Wray's beauty and obvious sex appeal are quite understood by Warners. She'd be immortalized in King Kong, though.

On a dark and stormy night in 1921 London, "Wax Museum" sculptor Lionel Atwill (as Ivan Igor) shows potential investors his incredibly lifelike wax figures (played by real people). He hopes for a major exhibit, but Mr. Atwill's partner says they can't pay the rent on their museum and burns the place down. Tragically, Atwill is believed to have gone up in flames, while partner Edwin Maxwell (as Joe Worth) takes the insurance payoff. Twelve years later, Atwill turns up in New York City. He has decided to recreate his beloved wax museum. In a wheelchair and unable to sculpt due to injuries sustained in the fire, Atwill resorts to highly unethical methods to recreate his waxworks. When dead bodies mysteriously disappear, snoopy blonde reporter Glenda Farrell (as Florence Dempsey) begins to investigate...Early "Technicolor" gives this Monster "Mystery of the Wax Museum" a distinctive look. With Ms. Farrell's enterprising reporter, this version also has a stronger female lead, and famed "King Kong" (1933) screamer Fay Wray (as Charlotte Duncan) also appears. The women have a sexy scene, after about a half hour of running time. Watch for Ms. Wray to show off her legs in shorts and stockings while roommate Farrell slinks around in bed. Anton Grot's stylish sets and Ray Rennahan's photography, as directed by Michael Curtiz, enables this version to hold up well against the re-make "House of Wax" (1953). Interestingly, both "houses of wax" successfully employed visual gimmicks to entice viewers. The 1953 revision (starring Vincent Price) appeared in "3-D" while this 1933 version employed Technicolor.******** Mystery of the Wax Museum (2/16/33) Michael Curtiz ~ Lionel Atwill, Glenda Farrell, Fay Wray, Allen Vincent

Fay Wray (that gal from "King Kong") plays the hard-boiled blonde newspaper reporter, looking for a story so she can keep her miserable job. She adds an element of humor to what would otherwise be a tedious telling of this now familiar story. In primitive 2-strip Technicolor, which has mostly faded to pastel shades of blue, green, and red. (Often shown in black and white.) Carefully restored by Warner Video, it is clear that they didn't have much of a print to work with. Added TV "breaks" actually help the "view-ability". Many scratches and reel-breaks. It must have been in terrible shape! Pretty-good sets for 1933, it has a "Frankenstein" feel to it in the villain's "mad lair". Some scenes closely copied in the 1953 remake "House of Wax". Here, Igor (Lionel Attwil-who always played "mad" scientists) is the name of the burned sculptor, not the speechless assistant! Only available on the backside of the "House of Wax" Warner DVD, I believe.

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.