What a beautiful movie!

Surprisingly incoherent and boring

There is definitely an excellent idea hidden in the background of the film. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find it.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

The story premise is quite simple. The owner of a wax figures shop wants to hire a writer "for publicity work in a waxworks exhibition". The hired writer, or "Poet", (William Dieterle) then creates fictional stories for three of the wax figures: Haroun al Raschid, Ivan the Terrible, and Jack the Ripper.The writer places himself and the owner's lovely daughter (who does little more than smile through the whole film) into his fictional scripts. And so what we get is a trio of short stories about these three historical figures with the writer as a central character.The first story, about Haroun al Raschid (Emil Jannings), consumes about half of the film's runtime. The second story runs about thirty minutes. And the third story (about Jack the Ripper) is mostly just an afterthought.The poet role (Dieterle) is fine. But the role played by Jannings is horrid; he's like something out of a nightmare. His bizarre clothing combined with bizarre facial expressions create a character that is quite repellent. Sans grotesque mustache, at times he resembles an inebriated fat old woman. This character is the most memorable image I have of this film, and it is not favorable.Visuals are almost as bizarre ... heavy shadows and, though technically in B&W, hues range from brownish to greenish to bluish and even lavender in a few scenes. Shapes of dwellings trend round and resemble stereotyped imperial places in Russia. Acting is horridly melodramatic.Viewers need to give very old films a lot of latitude. But "Waxworks" doesn't work for me, even making allowances for its age. Other films of the silent era are better.

A poet is hired by the owner of a wax museum in a circus to write tales about Harun al Raschid, Ivan the Terrible and Jack the Ripper. While writing, the poet and the daughter of the owner, Eva, fantasize the fantastic stories and fall in love with each other.Director Paul Leni tells three stories, with the great German actors Emil Jannings ("Last Laugh"), Werner Krauss ("Cabinet of Dr. Caligari") and Conrad Veidt ("Caligari") playing their roles. With this cast and director, you should expect greatness. Personally, I did not find it as great as it could have been, but this may be because I was expecting a horror film and because the film's quality was not what it could be.Kino deserves a lot of credit for releasing this film, especially considering that they had to mix two different sources. The unfortunate part is how pixelated the film is. Even on a medium-sized TV, the squares are evident. Maybe this is unavoidable, but it does make the transfer look cheap. (To be fair, the version I saw in the theater looked no better.)I am tempted to complain about historical accuracy, but I will not. I hope people know that Ivan the Terrible did not get obsessed with an hour glass and that Jack the Ripper never killed men. But, heck, who knows? I will say this: if you watch the film in a theater (which is quite a treat), the only way to do this is with live organ accompaniment. Please watch it like that, otherwise just rent or buy it. The Kino version comes with a nice Paul Leni short.And keep in mind how influential this film was. All wax museum films can be traced back to it, and it is widely believed that "Thief of Baghdad" took its inspiration from this film.

In the 1920s, the German film industry was one of the best producers of films in the world--making many films that were about as good as anything coming out of Hollywood. Because of this, I had relatively high expectations for this film. Sadly, however, despite this and a wonderful idea for a movie, "Waxworks" turned out to be, at best, a mediocre film--mostly because it was written so poorly and the stories all were so unsatisfying.The idea behind "Waxworks" is that the owner of some wax figures wants a writer to come up with some great stories about each of his three figures in order to lure in the public. This anthology notion is pretty good...but the execution left so much to be desired.The first story is about a Caliph in ancient times and this story is by far the longest of the three. It seems that this Caliph has fallen for the baker's wife and he sneaks in to make love to her. At the same time, the baker is sneaking in to the nearby palace to steal the Caliph's magic ring. Unable to get it off the hand easily, he chops off the Caliph's arm! Oddly, the Caliph just lays there--but at the same time he IS at the baker's house--what gives? This Middle Eastern set is interesting because some of the artistic style looks almost like a book by Dr. Seuss. Unfortunately, the story itself isn't particularly interesting even if it starred the world-famous Emil Jannings. Sadly, it's the best of the three.The second story is about Ivan the Terrible. Oddly, the sets are VERY tiny--almost claustrophobic. And the story about Ivan, poison and madness just isn't interesting in the least.The final about Spring Heeled Jack wasn't great but at least it was visually arresting. That's because, like "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari", it's a wonderful example of German Expressionism--with its crazy art style. It's all supposed to be a dream, so it makes sense that that they used this weird look.Overall, the film looks pretty cool but the stories just bored me to death. I sure expected better writing.

This is a movie that features 3 kind of different stories, when the owner of a wax museum hires a writer to write 3 stories for 3 of his models; Harun al Raschid, Ivan the Terrible and Jack the Ripper. It provides the movie with 3 different stories, set at different times and each with a new different main character, played by the finest 3 German actors of their time period. It's a very creative and interesting concept, also of course really when considering that this movie got made in 1924.In order to keep all of the stories still somewhat connected and make the movie more coherent as a whole, all of the stories feature the two actors William Dieterle and Olga Belajeff, each time in different roles. But when you have 2 stories of about halve an hour and then another one of just 5 minutes, can you still really call this movie a coherent one? It can be presumed that budgeting reasons was the reason why the last story of the movie is so much shorter. It was originally even planned to shoot a fourth story about Rinaldo Rinaldini. The character can still be seen at the start of movie, standing between the other waxed characters. Even though all stories are different and set in completely different time periods, they still have the same overall style over it, which still is a reason why this movie still feels like a whole one.All the episodes are good looking but the stories for it aren't always that interesting. Basically since it at times it kind of dragging and despite some early action and adventure elements, the movie still is sort of a lackluster. Well lack-lusting perhaps isn't the right way to describe it. It's more that it's not really engaging enough at all times.But of course the looks and style of the movie compensate a lot. This is a real expressionistic German movie, with some fantastic distinctive expressionistic sets. That alone already makes this movie for the lovers of German expressionistic style an absolute must-see.It's absolutely a great fact that this movie features Emil Jannings, Conrad Veidt and Werner Krauss, who were really the biggest, best known and best German actors of their time. The movie also features William Dieterle, who later gained more fame as a director of movies such as "The Life of Emile Zola" and the 1939 version of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", with Charles Laughton.It's basically a fun entertaining movie from the early '20's, that is truly worth watching for plenty of reasons.8/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/