As Good as 1953 version?


For those of you who've seen this movie (I haven't), would you say it is as good, not as good, or better than the remake (1953)? I was just wondering.

reply

The original 1933 version is MUCH MORE BETTER! The performances (especially Glenda Farrell), the atmosphere, everything is great. I consider the 1953 version absolutely boring.

Miss Jane Russell ROCKS!!!

reply

I suspect this goes without saying for most of you on this thread who are clearly already fans of the vintage horror genre, but anyone loving any of the versions of this story has GOT to see 'Carry On Screaming' which sends up many old horror movies but has a particularly strong connection with the wax storyline. It's a real hoot, and is one of the Carry Ons that could stand alone outside of the series on its own strengths.

reply

[deleted]

Quote:
"The original 1933 version is MUCH MORE BETTER!
The performances (especially Glenda Farrell), the
atmosphere, everything is great. I consider
the 1953 version absolutely boring."
~~~~~~~~~~~
I couldn't have said it any better.

I thought I'd like HOW because
I'm a Carolyn Jones fan, but I
didn't like that movie.

I really think what makes MOWM
good is Glenda Ferrell. Her lines
were just so funny and clever.

Both Igor's were good.

Fay Wray's Orry Kelly wardrobe
was so great.

"Oh, I Don't Care What People Call Me."-Debbie Harry

reply

yes it is

I think they are equally good




When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...

reply

Sounds about right to me. I love both films.Each is great in its own way, different from the other. The 1933 original is more lush, stunning to look at, it would have made a big splash if it had been a silent film; while the remake, from exactly twenty years later, relied heavily on the 3D "gimmickry" (as it were), which was a huge selling point at the time, yet was to fall out of favor in a in a couple of years. In this case the color is also a huge asset, though it's full three strip Technicolor, which came in about two years after Wax Museum33, and was a point in its favor, too, as color was still somewhat restricted to big budget films and westerns.

The later version was somewhat more realistic looking, was made with less "flamboyance" than the original, though it's handsome to look at all the same. I find the writing somewhat better in the remake; and the characterizations are more modern, as it's not truly Expressionistic,while the first version creates more "its own special world", and stays in that world. House actually made an attempt to create a realistic picture of early 20th century New York City, and makes a handsome job of it. There's also a stronger emotional quality to this one, with Vincent Price's character's decline in the course of its story sympathetic, while in the first picture Lionel Atwill's fall felt way more diabolical.

reply

I'd say the two run neck and neck, but I'll give the edge to the 1933 film based on Glenda Farrell's spectacular performance. I haven't seen the recent remake, nor do I intend to, but I think "Mystery of the Wax Museum" and the first "House of Wax" were excellent.

reply

I've just seen both versions and I like them both. The 53 version is faster and more fun,and his Vincent Price in fairly restrained mode,but the 33 version is more interesting visually and has better dialogue. I would say the 53 version just edges it for me,I just enjoy it a little more.

The recent version hardly has anything to do with them besides the use of wax dummies,but it's a fun grizzly slasher along Texas Chainsaw lines.

reply

Would you say the recent remake is suspenseful, or just cheesy? I love both the '33 and '53 versions, but the Paris Hilton factor has made me avoid the recent version ... until now.

reply

No question about it: "Mystery of the Wax Museum" is a MUCH better movie than "House of Wax." Why?

1) Concision. The 1933 version is half an hour shorter and moves the story along much quicker.

2) Color. The two-strip Technicolor used in 1933, as limited as the process was, frequently had a painterly elegance far more appealing than the often shrieking hues of the three-strip process that replaced it. In "Mystery of the Wax Museum" two-strip is used effectively by director Michael Curtiz and cinematographer Ray Rennahan to create a much more convincing Gothic mood than was possible with the cheap "WarnerColor" (actually Eastmancolor) used to film "House of Wax."

3) Glenda Farrell. I can't understand why some of the other contributors to this board find her "annoying." As far as I'm concerned she MAKES this movie! Her salty, energetic performance is the glue that holds this film together. "House of Wax" screenwriter Crane Wilbur's decision to eliminate this character is one of the dumbest moves ever made by a writer doing a remake.

4) Lionel Atwill. His sincerity and the depth of his performance must be seen to be believed. In the remake Vincent Price camped his way through the role, as he usually did in horror parts; and while Price's deliciously overwrought overacting in horror film after horror film had its appeal (he never let us forget that HE didn't take the genre seriously), there's no comparison between Price's camping and Atwill's genuine sincerity. Like Boris Karloff in the 1932 "The Mummy," Atwill actually makes us believe he's so crazy that by killing the heroine he really thinks he's doing her a favor!

5) Setting. "Mystery of the Wax Museum" takes place the year it was made, 1933 (indeed the New Year's celebration is depicted in the film and the relative simplicity of the Times Square New Year's party compared to the bizarre extravaganza it is now is one reason to watch this film!), and the contemporary setting gives it a crackling immediacy. The 1890's setting of "House of Wax" distances us from the story and makes it less effective.

What does "House of Wax" have going for it? Effectively and tastefully used 3-D (I had the good fortune to see it theatrically during the 1971 reissue of the 3-D version) and a gloriously over-the-top performance by Vincent Price (it was the movie that forever after "typed" him in horror roles). But "Mystery of the Wax Museum" is far and away the better film.

reply

Utter clot.

reply

Both good and fun it depends on your mood

reply

House of Wax is the superior film, the one that has stood the test of time as a classic. Mystery is a bit of fun, but nothing more.

reply

[deleted]

"You're wrong, you're so wrong."

reply

I prefer the 1953 version. This 1933 version has great atmosphere. But it is intruded upon by the Glenda Farrell's fast-talking comic reporter. Other characters come in with too many jokes that kills the creepiness of the film. Vincent Price's humour in the 1953 version is more subtle.

reply

Just watched Mystery of the Wax Museum and I enjoyed it a lot. I also love House of Wax. As a huge fan of German Expressionism, I enjoyed MOTWM a little more, but it does have two major drawbacks for me: Glenda Farrell's Florence is annoying beyond words --that voice, yikes, fingernails on the chalkboard-- and the horrible ending where Florence, who has shown no romantic interest in the slightest towards her editor Jim decides to marry him instead of the guy who has stood by her nonsense for the entire film, George Winton. Ooooohhhh, the working stiffs stick together against the rich guy, puh-leeze.

On the whole, I'll take Lionel Atwill's "silent screen acting" performance over Vincent Price's campiness, but they're both excellent in the role.

reply

I like Lionel Atwill. But I think he could have been just a bit more menacing in this one. I love Vincent Price's campiness. I'm a huge fan.

reply

Glenda Farrell's Florence is annoying beyond words


Glenda Farrel (and the 2-strip tech) is what makes this one worth watching.
Without her it would be mediocre at best, possibly awful.

reply

As much as I enjoy pre-Code movies, I thought the Vincent Price version was better. It was easier to follow and I felt it was more macabre. Mystery of the Wax Museum ain't bad, but I wouldn't rank it among the best pre-Code films.

reply

Better.

reply