I just saw the first trailer for the remake w/ Paris Hilton and Chad Michael Murray. House of Wax is one of my favorite films and nearly no one knows about it, now they will think that it is just a teen slasher flick w/ Paris Hilton. I'm so sad! I loved this film and I could boil the people who decided to remake it in a vat of wax and then make them into sculptures. Wait, didn't someone do this already, like, VINCENT PRICE?!?!
shareI would not call the 2005 version a 're-make' of the 1953 film (The '53 film was the actual re-make of 1933's 'Mystery of the Wax Museum'). The story line of the '05 version is completely different. They just made a typical slasher movie, used some wax sculptures in it and stole the title from a classic horror film. The 2005 version should not even be mentioned in this thread. I think it's an insult to the original.
shareI loved the '53 film and I loved the '05 film. They're both quite different genres. The older one is more dramatic and suspenseful, while the latest one is a horror flick. In fact, the latest one leans more toward the slasher movies of the eighties, albeit with a higher quality production. The latest one had some good scene blocking, focusing maneuvers to direct our attention to the storyline, and used actors to frame some of the shots. In addition, there were some overhead longshots that were Hitchcock-esque in nature. So, I think the bad rap it's getting in this thread is undeserving.
shareI agree with this post. You really can't compare the two films as they are entirely different. I Love the 1953 Vincent Price verison...its a great horror/suspense film. However like pezastic points out..it focuses more on drama, setting, and timing..to work. The 2005 remake IS basically an updated slasher film. It focuses on shock, gore, violence, etc. to work. So, though the 2005 film is (and the filmmakers admit) LOOSELY based upon the Vincent Price film; really the only thing the two films have in common is the title.
One thing I have also come to realize about the remake...its actually one of the "better" of the horror films to have come out in the last 5 years. I mean this in (sadly) all seriousness. I recently watched "Boogeyman", and have seen "Darkness Falls" and "Fear Dot Com" among others...and its just a bad time right now for the genre. All these films have decently done monsters/killers/ghosts whatever....but the writing is often horrendous and the acting pretty laughable. At least House of Wax had decent enough acting, and somewhat interesting writing.
"He who laughs last didn't get the joke" -Annoymous.
I agree that it wasn't a terrible film. It was actually a pretty decent horror/slasher flick. I just think they should have used a different title.
shareWhat movie studios mostly do in our time is either do stupid remakes or make crappy sequels to films that were simply great. I think classics should be left alone.
shareI watched both films, and the original was more of a psychological thriller, whereas the newer version was more about the gore. i think the same was true about Texas Chainsaw, the original was scarrier because it left a lot to the imagination, whereas the newer movies take all the imagination away and leave you with gruel special effects.
shareI think they're hopeing that they can remake old horror movies and younger audiences will think they're original (and unfortunately they're right). The same is true for the The Hills Have Eyes remake currently out, and the Wicker Man remake that will be coming out soon.
sharehills have eyes was actually better than the original.
RAINBOW recruiter
www.myspace.com/hugolo
[deleted]
Actually I really enjoyed the remake, I thought it was one of the best horror movies I have seen (and although you probably don't believe me I have seen a lot). Anyway, the 'teen slasher' title given to this remake (the 05 one) just isn't true, I think all the cast gave good performances and the fact that Chad Michael Murray and Elisha Cuthbert's characters were siblings made the film even better. Although many of you have said the characters in the remake have nothing which attracts the audience to them I think you are very long. Jared Padalecki was only on the screen for what? Half an hour, and yet I really didn't want him to die. Paris Hilton wasn't the best actor, but no one really expected her to be and I think her performance was actually quite good. Vincent and Bo were creepy and the sets were expansive and detailed. I just can't see where you are coming from by saying it was rubbish.
Hey think of all the good remakes out there - I mean, there are some excellent ones like House of Wax (2005) and also The Mummy (starring Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz), and then you get the bad ones like Amityville Horror. But whatever, the House of Wax (2005) may not have contained all the suspence etc of the original but hey, it was a great movie and I enjoyed it.
[deleted]
Sure they have. We all realize that. What people are complaining about is the *quality* of the remakes being done lately, which is usually nowhere near the original.
shareIt's sad that a Vincent Price film would have to suffer a dreadful remake...but it was hardly unexpected and it's not the first time.....This already happened with House on Haunted Hill. All I can say is that they better not remake Dr. Phibes!!!
share[deleted]
I know I'm extremely late here... but it was pretty entertaining to read this thread full of people whining about remakes... on the board for a movie that is itself a remake... and going on about how the original(this movie) is the best. But this isn't even the original... So funny.
share