I recently sat down and watched the original* House of Wax. It’s something I’ve been meaning to do for awhile now. Why, you may ask? Mr. Vincent Price.
Before I even knew what a horror movie was, “classic” or otherwise, Vincent Price made me shiver. My parents used to have an old 8-track player (yes, I said 8-track) and a tape of Mr. Price narrating an essay on witchcraft, demons and other things that go bump in the night. I was fascinated. I loved listening to it, and I remember it vividly to this day. But it’s not the content that I recall, that I barely remember. It’s his voice. It hit all my creep-out buttons and yet, I was absolutely mesmerized. It is urbane, articulate, and had a light rasp that gives it a depth and darkness. If I walked into a dark, dark room and I heard that voice purr, “Welcome-” Game Over. Mourners please omit flowers. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve started to go back and watch some of his movies and if I close my eyes, I can still feel the chills. He got me then, he has me now.
Dark Castle Entertainment is something else which gets to me, but for another reason. Created in 1999 by Robert Zemickis and Joel Silver, the production company (named after horror director William Castle) has been churning out horror movies about once a year. Most of these movies are “remakes” of older horror films. I say “remakes” because for the most part, other than title, genre, and a few plot points, these movies have little in common with their predecessors. They are a collective homage, re-imaginings of old ideas, which is really their only saving grace. In general, I abhor straight remakes- really, what’s the point? (Yes, Gus Van Sant- I’m looking at you!) But DCE is trying to produce cinematic valentines to the past, and I’m pretty OK with that. And while I’ve enjoyed most of them, 2005’s House of Wax stands out as an odd duck.
*The 1953 House of Wax is really a remake itself of the 1933 Mystery of the Wax Museum, starring Lionel Atwill, an actor who resembled Vincent Price so strongly, my roommate asked me why I was watching House of Wax again!
Spoilers abound- ye have been warned.
Let’s look at the actors (not the characters), for a moment. Back in the day, we had the studio system. Nearly all of the 1953 cast were contract players, veterans coming from the studio system, stage, or radio. Vincent Price, well he’s Vincent Price and the movie rested on his shoulders. But his supporting cast, including radio and TV regular Frank Lovejoy, and Phyllis Kirk and Carolyn (Morticia Addams)Jones were hardly rookies, and it shows. Yet, in the 2005 version, DCE made its biggest mistake to date. DCE’s other features starred mostly adult actors with solid experience. (Gabriel Byrne, Tony Shalhoub, and Geoffrey Rush, are a few.) Yet here they went straight to the teens. In trying to draw in a younger crowd, they lost acting credibility. I mean, really- Paris Hilton?! Paris Hilton, veteran of red carpets, reality TV, and movies of a more- let’s say- homemade variety. Chad Michael Murray and Elisha Cuthbert are both TV regulars (One Tree Hill and 24, respectively). They have experience, and both are currently making bids for big-screen stardom, but they still have a long way to go. In fact, the only cast member with what I would call significant movie experience would be Brian Van Holt, our villain(s).
Advantage- 1953. Say what you will about the studio system, in this case, at least it managed to put together solid ensemble casts instead of a mishmash of pretty faces and celebrity names. The adults give the movie a seriousness that fluffy, pretty-looking teens on the cusp just don’t have.
Both movies take the concept of vengeance to its homicidal extreme. 1953’s Dr. Henry Jarrod (Price) loses his beloved wax museum to a greedy business partner’s flames. In retribution, a horribly scarred Dr. Jarrod kills his former partner and begins killing others to replace his lost figures. Ultimately, he fixates on Sue-Allen (Phyllis Kirk), the girlfriend of one of his assistants, (coincidentally, also the roommate of one of his victims,) as the replacement for his most cherished figure, Marie Antoinette. It’s a paint-by-number mystery/thriller, and Dr. Jarrod is the only character that gets to show more than one side to his personality. The other characters exist to serve the plot- the sensitive artist boyfriend, the innocent female heroine, the “loose” female victim, and the stalwart, but skeptical cop. They’re all there. Price is at his skeevy best when with Sue-Allen, his Marie Antoinette. And it’s that creepiness along with her reactions, her disbelief at seeing her friend in one of the tableaus, and the way everyone tries to convince her she’s mistaken, are what really sell what is essentially a watered-down version of the 1933 original “original.” Along for the ride are little vignettes (a paddle-ball barker [an awesome Reggie Rymal] and a can-can number) that are distracting asides meant to showcase the 3-D hook of the original release. The make-up by George and Gordon Bau was amazing for its day, and the burning of Jarrod’s original exhibit was intense and well-staged. The death scenes, as was tradition, are mostly off-screen, with the notable exception of Dr. Jarrod’s crooked partner.
2005 tosses out both pictures in favor of a new, more modern approach to the plot- albeit one that takes it down the teen slasher-flick road. Teens get stranded, teens end up in creepy town complete with a House of Wax, teens meet up, and are subsequently killed by, homicidal brothers who have turned the entire town into a waxy showcase of human/wax figures. (They even include wiggling puppies in the pet store window.) The current usual suspects are all there: the virginal heroine, the cute (yet asshole) boyfriend, the snarly (but cute) “bad twin” hero-brother, the funny sidekick friend, and the sparring lovers. We even have our red-herring, dirty redneck, looks-like-a-serial killer mystery guy. However, instead of avenging a single event, like 1953’s Dr. Jarrod, the villains (“good” twin Vincent and “bad” twin Bo, who are separated Siamese twins to boot) are avenging their entire childhood. The artistic one, the “good” one, is as physically disfigured as the “bad” one is emotionally disfigured. All the while, the boys are trying to impress a dead mother by taking her beloved museum and, well, expanding and improving upon the original concept. Instead of little 3-D showcase bits, we have B-plots in abundance, including a ridiculous pregnancy scare for Paris, a small-town boyfriend not willing to go to the big city with his girlfriend, and the “evil twin” hero-brother harping on his sister for busting him with the cops. Take ‘em or leave ‘em, it’s at least an attempt to flesh out the dimensionality of the characters. The chase scenes are hectic, the death scenes are fairly original, and the melting of the entire set at the end was a pretty impressive justification for the CGI budget.
Advantage- 2005. Having seen the 1933 Mystery of the Wax Museum, I was disappointed in 1953’s version. Gone was the spunky reporter/heroine, and the who-done-it element was weakened at best. 2005 gets points for (dare I say it?) plot originality. Your established heroine doesn’t usually get hurt as bad or as early as Carly (Elisha Cuthbert) does in this picture (kudos to the writer who came up with that LOVELY use for super-glue, everyone I watched the movie with squirmed in unison), and having the entire town made of wax made for a nice sense of isolation- if only the writers could have come up with a better way to explain it.
And now we arrive at the always important climax and “happy ending.” The 1953 version has your traditional it’s-all-over, everything’s-OK-now ending. The “mask” Price wears is shattered, revealing the scarred psychopath beneath. The stalwart cop realizes the heroine was right all along, and arrives in the nick of time to save her, sending the killer into his own vat of boiling wax. Afterwards, you have the final recap/we’re off to our happy ending scene the next day at the police station. What I liked best about the whole climax and dénouement was the sensitive boyfriend was a complete loser who got his ass kicked by Dr. Jarrod’s deaf-mute assistant, Igor. (Who's played by a very young Charles Bronson.) And there’s a cute little bit at the end with Sue-Ellen thanking the cop for putting his coat over her as she lay (hidden from view) naked in Jarrod’s lab.
Where 1953 started with a museum-destroying blaze, 2005 ended with it- and then some. Hero and heroine fight off the deadly twins and the wax museum (made entirely of wax- walls and all) burns, well actually, melts down. You get the next morning scene with cops all over the place. They’re a little late at catching onto all of the people disappearing because, well, they forgot the town was there. Yeah, not kidding, they lost the entire town, but token black guy’s GPS was able to find the shortcut through it just fine. Oi! And as our heroes ride off in their ambulance, one of the cops turns to the other and throws us our "gotcha!" hook- the twins had a brother, and he’s still out there. Cut to (not-so) red-herring redneck guy, waving good-bye to our heroes.
Advantage- neither. I hate the way 1950’s heroes and heroines just go about their business the next day like nothing happened, but hearing the cops admit they lost a town in the 2005 version killed whatever tension had been built up during the flaming climax in the museum. The endings of horror movies have become so cliché that I tend to dismiss them, unless something truly spectacular and unforeseen happens.
I’ll overlook a lot in a movie with a good cast, and 1953 has a good cast. The characters are stock, but the actors play them well, and with absolute conviction. And while the plot was watered down from the original, it was still mostly intact and I could follow it without too much trouble. The problem with 2005’s movie is that most of the cast seemed to be too cool for their roles, and therefore come off as sleepwalkers. It’s a common curse of the young actor. The only ones who seemed to really go for it with a gusto were Elisha Cuthbert and Brian Van Holt who get points for being the leads (heroine and villain), but they aren’t enough to carry the entire movie. Especially when foiled against Vincent Price and Phyllis Kirk. And fancy effects, while exciting and pretty to look at, tend to throw me out of movies like this. While watching an entire building melt around the heroes in 2005 is exciting and really, really cool, watching Vincent Price witness the fiery destruction of his precious creations, unable to save a single one just hits you in the heart.
The winner- 1953’s House of Wax. I liked them both, but Vincent Price, you just can't beat him.
Check out Mystery of the Wax Museum if you get the chance- it’s a wonderful 1930's thriller!
Filmography links and data courtesy of The Internet Movie Database.
