Woe is me - the remake

[deleted]

You have no idea what you are talking about. If you didn't catch it, House of Wax is a Dark Castle movie. This is the film company formed by Joel Silver and Robert Zemeckis with the specific goal of recreating the movies of William Castle (who you apparently identify as Vincent Price). This roster so far includes House on Haunted Hill, 13 Ghosts, and House of Wax (Vincent Price starred in all three of the originals). I think that this production company has done an admirable job so far and are due a little respect, regardless of their casting choices (which are often out of their hands anyway).

I don't know if you are a big fan of Vincent Price like I am but another big disapointing remake of one of his great films was House on Haunted Hill. The original was fantastic but the remake was just another gore film. The only good part about the remake was that they found an actor who could look and sound a lot like Vincent Price. The trailers for the House of Wax remake don't even look like they kept much of the same story line.

i love this movie and i think that the violence is so realistic

The remake was excellent.

----------
If you enjoy cinema, please check out my website @ http://FilmPix.cjb.net!

Hey guys, just saw the remake a couple of nights ago. Just wondering, is House of Wax originally from the Tales from the Crypt series? Or is it completely on it's own? I loved Tales from the Crypt and the HoW DVD I rented had a commercial for Tales at the beginning. I can see it being a show from there, lots of similarities, etc. Thanks.




SSS

hey smart guys and movie elitists alike. i hope you know that THIS is also a remake. check out 1933 "Mystery of the Wax Museam" Remakes have been happeneing forever. Movies have always been made form books, plays, and just stories, so relax. there will always be remakes. always.

p.s. do your research before you go on a rant

-besides, everyone dies all by himself.

OK, I just wanted to weigh in my opinion on this and agree with most of the sentiments shared here. I've been a big fan of Vincent Price for years, especially this movie. Given the current state of horror films, I wasn't expecting much from the "remake." And was surprised...not in a good way, but because I found it so disturbing that I actually swore off movies for a while.

When you compare the "remake" to the original version, there's just so much about it to despise, and Paris Hilton is only the least of them. Fortunately, the Princess of Bitchiness doesn't have much to do in this movie except provide just another victim. But her character is pretty indicative of the kind of people you can expect in this movie. When you take the 1953 classic (I won't call it the original, since I know the Toth film is a remake too), the new one just doesn't measure up in terms of character, story, or even ANYTHING.

For one thing, the 1953 film has characters you can actually care about. Vincent Price's Henry Jarrod is such a sympathetic villain, whether anyone realizes it or not. He's a brilliant artist who lost his whole life's work due to his sleazy partner's greed, and even if you can't accept his methods for repopulating his museum, you can agree with his motives for it. Jarrod is exactly the kind of "good man gone bad" character that Price always played so well, especially in later stuff like The Abominable Dr. Phibes and Theater of Blood. It's the same with Phyllis Kirk's Sue Allen. She's a smart brave girl who figures out the museum's big secret first, even if no one believes her.

The "remake," on the other hand, has precious little of that. The Sinclair brothers, the wax-wiedling psychos in this one (the screenwriters, by the way, had the audacity to name the deformed one Vincent, a sad attempt at tribute that made me squirm) don't generate much sympathy. Throughout the movie, we don't get any real explanation as to WHY they're doing all this (and they're not just filling a museum; they're waxing an entire TOWN, somehow). Instead of tortured artists exacting revenge, they're just a couple of creepy Southern boys who like to torture people for no apparent reason.

Don't expect much from the victims either. The cast does well enough with what they're given, but the script doesn't give us anything other than sad stereotypes--a bunch of stupid kids doing stupid things. I know that's about all you can expect from a modern day teen slice-em-up, but it's still irritating when you compare it to the 1953 version.

THat leads to the most disturbing scene in the "remake"--one where Jared Padalecki gets waxed alive...not only alive, but SEMI-CONSCIOUS, for God's sake. When you compare that to Phyllis Kirk's damsel-in-distress scene (or Faye Wray's scene in Mystery in the Wax Museum), it's even more disturbing. In both of the earlier films, it's cool and suspenseful because of two things. For one, you know it's not really going to happen. Any minute, Frank Lovejoy or Glenda Farrell is going to break in and stop the psycho from turning the valve. In the 2005 version, however, you know old Jared is pretty much finished when Vincent slashes his Achilles tendon.

What's more, in the new version, you don't especially care. Phyllis Kirk is such a likable character that you don't WANT her to end up on display in Jarrod's museum. Padalecki's character, however, is the quintessential Horror Movie Moron, the kind of guy who just can't resist seeing what's hidden inside the big creepy house, the one that makes you want to scream "WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING???" While he's getting prepped and covered, it's a revolting spectacle, but not so much because you like the guy as much as because it shows the direction horror movies are going these days.

It's not about the suspense anymore. Or the atmosphere, or the story, or the characters, or anything that's always made horror films a treat. Now, it's more about the shock factor, or how disgusting you can make a death scene. And that's too bad, considering the kind of amazing history horror has had in the last century. It's doubly sad when you consider that the film talent pool hasn't been drained yet. I did find the set design and a lot of the camera work in the 2005 "remake" impressive, and it would be interesting to learn what Jaume Collett-Serra could do with a more competant script.

So do yourself a favor. Just keep enjoying the 1953 classic (and the 1933 original) and don't watch the "remake" unless you're geared up for the serious slandering of a great film. I understand they'll soon be selling this one and the 2005 version as part of a combined set. Sorry, but they don't deserve to share the same shelf, let alone a box.



"Peter, those are Cheerios..." Brian Griffin