Which one do you think is better: the original House of Wax or the remake?
I personally would go for the remake.
What do you think?
I thought the remake was one of the worse movies I've seen in years. I'll take the 1953 version any day.
shareAgree 100%. It even made the remake of The Stepford Wives look good. that was leading Worst Remake Ever with me until I saw this current piece of trash.
Love is never having to say you're sober.
Really???
Seriously???
You thought a movie with Paris Hilton was better than a movie with the great Vincent Price???
WOW!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. - Mark Twain.
The remake was the best. Brian van holt was amazing
shareThat's a way of putting it, RAR. But, you know, one individual doesn't necessarily make a movie terrible, nor great.
You go get help. I'll handle the bear. ~ Sean Barkershare
<<< That's a way of putting it, RAR. But, you know, one individual doesn't necessarily make a movie terrible, nor great. >>>
I agree with you up to a point! One performance shouldn't matter that much, but I've seen movies ruined by one terrible actor in a pivotal role. It does happen.
Also, I thought blood and gore were great the first few times I saw those types of movies. But seriously, blood and gore can't compare to good acting and good atmospheric film-making!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. - Mark Twain.
You do have a point there. And I completely agree with the latter.
You go get help. I'll handle the bear. ~ Sean Barkershare
Okay the plot and ideas of the original are so fasinating, morbid, and unique. The remake took one item (turning people into wax statues) and made it into a teen slasher. The orginal is campy, but it supposed to be so and better than the brainless teen slasher remake.
sharei never said it was because Paris Hilton was in the movie. They could have taken her out for all i care and she dies anyway so :)). I just felt like i liked it better. :))
shareAre you sure that you've seen the 1953 version of "House of Wax"? Perhaps you are thinking of some inferior horror movie with "House" or "Wax" in the title.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. - Mark Twain.
The 1953 original, HANDS DOWN!
share<<< The 1953 original, HANDS DOWN! >>>
Absolutely!
Hollywood should NOT do remakes if there is no way to even come close to the originals! “House of Wax”, “Psycho”, “The Time Machine”, “War of the Worlds”, etc., aren’t even half as good as the originals, and that is including the more advanced special effects in the remakes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. - Mark Twain.
THIS is a remake of the original 1933 film, Mystery of the Wax Museum.
And I disagree. The recent versions of House of Wax and War of the Worlds are better than the older ones. It's been a while for me to remember, but I think the Psycho remake was about as good as the original. Haven't seen the Time Machine remake.
How old are you?
Have you watched many movies which had actors who are not alive today?
I'm not going to argue with you if you feel that newer movies are better, but have you really watched enough old movies to have a valid opinion of them?
man plz dun go near the original psycho .. plz keep ur oponion to urself !!
the remake was pure *beep* .. and house of wax 2005 version is good ..but js keep psycho outta it .
I think the Psycho remake was about as good as the original
My horror movie blog:
http://thebloodypitofhorror.blogspot.com/
QFT.
Although, as has been noted, this "original" was actually a redo of the even earlier Mystery of the Wax Museum...remakes CAN be equal to or better than earlier versions (e.g., I prefer the Steve Martin Father of the Bride films to the first, which was good nevertheless)--but I find that nowadays, this is very rare.
On the other hand, the 2005 House of Wax is so different from these first two (keeping only the basic premise of murdered corpses being sealed under wax), that it is more of an "inspired by" than an actual remake, anyhow. I thought that the entire place being made of wax was pretty stupid, though overall it's an okay slasher...and still nothing compared to the brilliant horror of 1953's.
Saluki momshare
Are you referring to the 1933 version when you talk about the original or this one? You know that the 1933 version has been remade twice. Which remake are you talking about?
- No animal was hurt during the making of this burger -
There were only two movies with the title "House of Wax!" The 1933 film was called "Mystery of the Wax Museum." You know what they were referring to so either quit playing dumb or quit trying to get smart. I think at least most people are aware that the Vincent Price movie was a remake . . . they should considering the DVD release has "Mystery of the Wax Museum" on the other side.
shareSo, which two film was the OP refering to?
- No animal was hurt during the making of this burger -
Wow, so you are that dumb.
shareI see this is an old post, but its peevish nature deserves a response. "thao's" question was a perfectly legitimate one, inasmuch as the 2005 film was not a remake of the 1953 one.
It's the story, rather than the title, which qualifies a film as a "remake." There have been any number of instances of titles shared by films which have nothing whatsoever to do with each other (THE RAVEN, THE BLACK CAT, HEAVEN CAN WAIT, BRAINSTORM, for example), and just as many where true remakes bore titles different from the originals (ROBERTA - LOVELY TO LOOK AT; THE WOMEN - THE OPPOSITE SEX; HERE COMES MR. JORDAN - HEAVEN CAN WAIT).
"thao" doesn't deserve your snarky abuse, any more than you're entitled to deliver it.
Poe! You are...avenged!
100% AGREED, Doghouse!
sharePerhaps the very movie which this board belongs to?
sharehas anyone mentioned this was supposed to be a remake, or you just assumed it was because of the similar title?
they're both horror movies set in a wax museum, but I don't think that's enough to call it a remake.
I enjoyed those 2 VERY DIFFERENT movies, and I recommend them both.
I just saw this version today, I think The Wizard of Oz scared me more, 1.5/10 for a horror. Most of these 50's movies are seriously outdated...It must have been good though seeing it than, nowadays it wont have any effect.
The new one is much better.
I feel really sorry for you that you can't appreciate good quality classic films that not only are far superior to the 2000's films but are not outdated.
Your chains are still mine, you belong to me! - The Phantom Of The Opera
The remake is WAY different from the original, and I mean really really different. Only thing that's similar are dead bodies as wax sculptures and that's it. But I like the original and the remake is just....ok. It depends on what you like to seee. The original has that Vincent Price suspense in a classic horror from the 50s and the remake is just like what you see in modern slashers with teens going to places they shouldnt be going to and being slaughtered.
I like the original better because it has more story to it, but if I wanna see blood and some sick action then I'd prefer the remake.
[deleted]
HOUSE OF WAX (2005) actually has more resemblance to a little seen horror film, with Chuck Connors, titled TOURIST TRAP (1979) than it does with the original Vincent Price vehicle.
So, in a way, HOUSE OF WAX (2005) is a total rip off of TOURIST TRAP (1979) but it's masquerading around as a remake of HOUSE OF WAX (1953).
A 3-D Spaghetti Western rereleased to theatres cominatyanoir3d.com Comin' soon!
Though, I've seen a little bit of this film, it seems pretty good. I hope to see this completely someday. And I don't care what people think when I say that I actually like the 2005 version, too. I think that this and the 2005 one are each scary and mysterious in their own unique way. Both times, I was in to the plot and was creeped out by some of the scenes that involved such disturbing elements about wax. Still, they both are underrated yet good scary movies.
In my opinion, the 1933 and 2005 King Kong movies, and 1978 and 2007 Halloweens each are great in their own ways. Hey, to each his own.
[deleted]
I prefer the 1933 version (under the title "Mystery of the Wax Museum"). I love the art deco design of the underground workshop, and Fay Wray is just gorgeous, even if she is terribly wooden. I also find the early Technicolor to be much more atmospheric. Plus, since the 1933 version was pre-Code, the professor's assistant was a drug addict rather than an alcoholic, which added some neat realism for such an early film.
"What I got don't need pearls." -- Linda Darnell (1923-65)