MovieChat Forums > House of Wax (2005) Discussion > Unfair ratings just because of Paris..?

Unfair ratings just because of Paris..?

posted 10 years ago by MonikkaZ
37 replies | jump to latest

This movie is simply great and you can't tell me that there is anything wrong with it. Even though the plot was based on the original House of Wax (1953) it is extremely original. Jaume Collet-Serra did a great job as the director of it and the cast themselves did really really good. Yes, by that I mean also Paris Hilton. She may not be the most amazing actress on the whole Earth but she did good. I guess the role suited her because I cannot say anything bad about her performance. I mean, obviously could be better but it was good enough.

[–] lebowskithedude 10 years ago

Great? I don't know about that. I will say that this film rises above other generic R-rated "teenagers get killed" horror movie. Its structure is conventional, the gore takes center stage over suspense or chills, but the atmosphere and sets are creepy and intense. The Whatever Happened To Baby Jane scene in the movie theater is, to me, an all-time classic scene.

But the original is simply a better film. The acting is superior (it doesn't get much better than Vincent Price), the plot's more involving, and the horror holds up remarkably well after 60+ years. In 60+ years nobody's going to be talking about the 2005 House Of Wax.

[–] MonikkaZ 10 years ago

I agree, in 60+ years no one will remember that film, but as for now it is one of the better horrors from years 2000-present.

[–] jinx_malone 8 years ago

To compare this movie to the original House of Wax is idiotic since they share nothing but the title. The film to compare this to--and it compares favorably--is Tourist Trap, which in itself was ripping off Texas Chain Saw Massacre.

Out of all the worthless horror remakes of the aughts, House of Wax is genuinely one of the better films and it holds up with repeat viewings. I saw it in the theatre initially and wrote it off as just another remake since that was all a genre fan could see in big box theatres at that time. We were inundated with reboots/re-imaginings, were sick to death of the trend, and most fans I know essentially said '*beep* it', talked throughout the whole, and promptly forgot about it.

When I caught it again five years later or so and gave it my attention, I realized that if they'd simply given it a different title it would have been received much more positively. That's been borne out for me by showing it to friends who aren't as snobbish about their horror and they all love it. It always gets applause on Movie Night.

It's still cribbing from earlier films but it's got a nasty, grindhouse-y approach to its horror, gore and sex scenes, disturbing antagonist(s) in Bo/Vincent and an extremely weird, creepy, and decidedly kinky vibe between Elisha Cuthbert and Chad Michael Murray, who plays her twin brother, not her boyfriend! The setting of both the town and the house itself is terrific and unsettling, and to top it off, Paris Hilton isn't nearly as horrible as everyone likes to moan about. If you've still got to hate, then the setpiece for her death should satisfy.

Looking back I think it will be very well received. It's not torture porn and it's not *beep* It's a fun movie and a scary one, and I'm not ashamed to admit that I bought this one. On blu-ray.

-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch

[–] Soul_Snatcher 10 years ago

Ignorance is root of evil. Some people have narrow minded perception , which only they can change. This was certainly one of the amazing horror movie out there , none can deny that.

[–] evil_nemesis 9 years ago

I even love Paris Hilton. Seriously.

= The Nemesis =

[–] gljbradley 9 years ago

I agree. I hate that this movie gets hated on mostly due to Paris. It's actually a great movie as you said and a damn good remake. Plus, it was genuinely scary during some moments.

[–] Inspector_Spacetime 9 years ago

I do think the film is underrated. The final act, in which the house is melting, is exceptionally well done in my opinion. I'm a fan of it.

[–] smitty_cregger52 9 years ago

I'm not gonna lie...the movie was entertaining. My only beef is Chad Michael Murray...he's the only one who mailed in this performance. Paris Hilton wasn't all that bad.

[–] jacksvoice 9 years ago

it should be rated higher because of paris

[–] daBronze 9 years ago

I always felt this was underrated. Casting of Paris doesn't bother me one bit either.

[–] bradleynath 9 years ago

I agree, It's not as if Paris Hilton survived the movie, although I wouldn't have minded if she did live, none of the cast particularly irritate me. One thing I would change is the third brother, I hate weird characters like him and the hitchhiker from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, there just gross characters that appear every so often to drool and spit blood at the main cast. If I had my way I would edit him right out of it or make him less gross.

Either way I love House of Wax I hope it gets some love on Ultra HD Blu-Ray.

[–] hurricanehorton 9 years ago

I ain't a fan if Paris Hilton, but I liked this film.

[–] jnorgle 9 years ago

I'm not sure how Paris could have done better. I compare her to videos I have of me or my friends and find intonation is on average the same...this movie required a lot of hard work and for many people, its visuals and storyline and acting will be on point, and for others, it will not suit their tastes, and that is just how it is for every movie.

[–] hurricanehorton 9 years ago

To be fair, Paris didn't really have to be the most superb actor. She wasn't in the film all that much. And was really only their so they could get a fairly good looking woman in her bra, before she died. (And maybe to add some 'name' value.)

She was fine enough for a side character, who doesn't do all that much. It might have ruined the film had she been the lead.