House of Wax, The [2005]

---

Tools:
Recommend review to a friend »

---

I'm not entirely sure the world needed a high-definition version of the 2005 horror movie "House of Wax," but here it is. Despite its being another rather silly horror flick from Dark Castle Entertainment and producers Joel Silver, Robert Zemeckis, and Susan Levin, the team that brought us "Ghost Ship," "Gothika," and the remakes of "House on Haunted Hill" and "Thir13en Ghosts," there are a few eye-catching scenes in the new "House of Wax" that benefit from high-def. Since the HD-DVD is a definite improvement in video quality over the standard-definition release, which was only so-so, I suppose if you like the film, this is the way to go.

In my experience, the two film genres that evoke the most controversy among viewers are comedy and horror. They seem to be the kinds of movies that people are most apt either to love or hate, with little in between, which is no surprise considering that laughter and fear are such strong emotions. Understandably, these genres are also the ones most likely to elicit passionate reader response to a positive or negative review: "Why did you like that?" or "How could you not have liked such-and-such?" I mention this at the outset because of the history of "House of Wax" and the varied responses there have been to the many films of that title over the years.

Disregarding for the moment some inferior things like "Midnight at the Wax Museum" (1936), "Charlie Chan in the Wax Museum" (1940), "Nightmare in Wax" (1969), and "Terror in the Wax Museum" (1973), the first serious wax-museum horror film was WB's "The Mystery of the Wax Museum" (1933), with Lionel Atwill as a sculptor in wax who became horribly disfigured in a fire and crippled for life. He resorted to reopening his exhibit hall using real corpses under the wax, going so far as to murder several people for their bodies. A wonderfully creepy premise. Warner Bros. remade the film in 1953 as "House of Wax," starring Vincent Price, and it had two results: It became the most popular 3-D movie ever made, and, after seeing it as a child, it kept me awake at night for weeks. I still can't visit a wax museum without wondering if maybe, just possibly, under the wax.... Nahhh.

With the story's distinguished background and with today's CGI special effects capable of reproducing virtually anything on a movie screen, it was perhaps no wonder that Warner Bros. were tempted to try their luck again. Unfortunately, they used only the title this time, a load of FX, a lot more blood, and nowhere near a convincing story.

The two previous WB wax-museum films I mentioned were based on fairly preposterous premises, to be sure, but they were at least believable within their own right. There was nothing impossible about the idea of crazed sculptors killing people and covering their bodies in wax; it's an unpleasant idea, to be sure, repulsive and scary, but not completely out of the realm of credibility. In the new "House of Wax" we get a similar premise but carried to such extremes that it's hard to suspend disbelief. And bowing to the cinematic whims of our day, the premise is updated with a group of college kids lost in the woods, making the tale a sort of "Mystery of the Wax Museum Meets Friday the 13th." If it weren't done so straight, it might have made a fairly amusing spoof.

Here's the deal: Six college students from Florida decide to take a road trip to Baton Rouge, Louisiana, for a football game. The drive will take them all night, and they plan on driving straight through. But somewhere along the way, just before sunset, they are forced to take a detour off the main road and into the woods. But you knew that. Eventually, they decide to pull over and camp for the evening, and the next morning they find one of their two vehicles with a broken fan belt, so several of them make their way to the small town of Ambrose for help. There, all hell breaks loose when they discover there is almost nobody living in the seemingly placid, well-ordered place. In the center of town is a "House of Wax." Not just a wax museum, but a building made entirely of wax--the walls, the doors, the furniture, and the people inside. Can you even imagine how many tons of wax it would take to build such a place? And where would all the wax come from, the town being secreted off in the middle of the woods?

OK, you've probably already guessed what's going on and what's going to happen to our little band of merrymakers. After a decent buildup, the movie turns into a typically violent slasher debacle, with little but chase-and-run to keep our interest. As with most of these affairs, the only interesting diversion for the audience is guessing the order of the characters' demise.

Jaume Collet-Serra directed the movie, and his is a name that may not ring any bells with most viewers because before "House of Wax" his work was exclusively in music videos and TV commercials. At least this means Collet-Serra was competent at creating visual images, which is the best thing about the film. The interior of the wax museum is appropriately creepy, and the climactic scene therein is well worth waiting for. However, beyond some of the imagery, it's business as usual in these affairs, with nary a cliché left untouched.

The young people are all in their mid twenties, handsome and beautiful as the case may be. Funny-looking or even ordinary-looking people are seldom permitted to go into the woods alone on dark, stormy nights, and no one over thirty is ever allowed. The actors involved are Elisha Cuthbert and Chad Michael Murray, playing a brother and sister who have always been competitive; Robert Ri'chard and Paris Hilton, playing a boyfriend and girlfriend who are more interested in sex than in football games or road trips; Jared Padalecki and Jon Abrahams as a couple of friends; and Brian Van Holt as one (or two) of Ambrose's leading citizens.

Given Collet-Serra's proficiency in making music videos, expect an abundance of quick edits and extreme close-ups, with the screen often occupied by a succession of gigantic heads and a few too many "Blair Witch"-type, handheld camera effects. Yet, insofar as horror movies go, although this one may be more than a little hackneyed, the director does manage to inject a modicum of suspense on a couple of occasions and some genuine tension on a few others; plus, there are several good overhead and tracking shots à la Hitchcock. It isn't much, mind you, but if you look for them, you'll find them. You'll also find a number of red herrings in the plot and plenty of cleavage. Collet-Serra is a director who knows his audience. (And speaking of cleavage, Ms. Hilton, while she mainly runs around a lot in her underwear and is never actually called upon to do much acting, does not embarrass herself as an actress.)

---

---