I love Vincent Price, I can’t stand Paris Hilton, so why was House of Wax 2005 so popular? I saw it in theaters and half the people in the theater cheered when she was killed. Why remake a classic movie like that and turn it into a teenage movie with that ditz in it?
Just goes to show that movies remade are never the same or as good as the originals, especially when you throw in someone with no talent, no brains, and no acting skills whatsoever.
Whats your Opinion, I’m curious?
2007-05-28 04:40:25 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
The only thing the same about them is the name.
and the 2005 actually kind of bombed you must have your info wrong. it was only popular until people saw what a turd it was.
They thought that movie was going to be a #1 for a long time
but it faded into obscurity.
Paris made no difference to me one way or the other I don't really give a damn about her or here lame attempt at acting.
Me I liked it after the hype died down and after paris was off the screen.
Vincent Price all the way for me. his movie was kind of poetic and was a great story But anything he was in he added a style and class to the movie.
2007-05-28 04:50:49 · answer #1 · answered by Rickdark1 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There have been several good remakes, House of wax, no. It was not the vincent price that you are thinking of, waxwork, in the eighties, it was that version that they remade, which makes it worse. I think the people cheered because we are all tired of hearing her say that is hot. The movie was horrible, the editing half rate, no direction, bad lighting, I mean the acting was the only thing that could have kept me through it, just laughing that the fact they actually got paid to do that. You have to know who is doing the remake. Most movies out today are spun off of other movies, but too out and out remake something, you have to come at it originally, with keeping the idea the same.
2007-06-05 03:23:16 · answer #2 · answered by chris m 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
...without question, the 1953 version IS the best version (although almost everyone has pretty much forgotten the very FIRST version of the story, namely "Mystery of the Wax Museum", wrought in 1933, and starring Lional Atwell and Fay Wray).
...not only is the Vincent Price version the best of the lot, it is also bore the most realistic, seamless and thrilling 3D effects ever put on the screen, an ironic notion, considering director Andre de Toth was blind in one eye, when he made the film. With the recent revival of 3D effects, having been incorporated with digital technology, it would be absolutely phenomenal to have someone go back, clean up the film, institue the 3D digital technology, and re-release the film in it's original, albeit enhanced 3D glory (Hey, Warner Bros!!! Take Note!!!)
Point of interest, for those unititated: While watching the '53 "House of Wax", look sharpy for a slightly-more-than-bit part, played by an as-yet unknown actor, by the name of Charles Buchinsky, better known today as the late, great Charles Bronson.
...by the way, I agree pretty much with most people, regarding that abymal and gawd-awful new version of "House of Wax"; the only good part in the film is the gleefully grisly demise of poor little rich girl, Paris Hilton!!! (...the scene garnished cheer-and-clap deafening standing ovation, in the theatre I went to see the film!!)
2007-05-28 05:39:23 · answer #3 · answered by Fright Film Fan 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've seen both and own both.
The 2 films have the same name, but not even close to the same plot. So calling and trying to judge it as a remake is pretty much impossible.
1953: A classic, without a doubt.
2005: The story itself, was actually good. Special effects, also very good.
I tend to think that people pretty much automatically wrote this movie off because Paris Hilton was in it. I was pleasantly surprised that her acting, was actually solid. She wasn't playing a dramactic role here people. She played the character she was given rather well.
I don't like her and I can't stand her, but when I watch a movie, I can disregard what they do in real life. I can easliy seperate the two.
If people would watch this film and actually take it for what it is, a movie, then they would enjoy themselves.
2007-06-02 15:31:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The original is better, who doesn't love Vincent Price? I really don't think the 2005 version is watched and liked so much because of Paris Hilton. I think people liked it because it is new, hip and it's updated. I liked all the other characters in the new version and I thought it was a good scary flick.
2007-05-28 04:52:20 · answer #5 · answered by Lea 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
House of Wax with Vincent Price is 1000 times better,almost all re-makes are weak.As for this re-make...its bad enough they turned it into a teenager slasher film instead of keeping it a thriller/scary film.They had to get that whore Paris Hilton in it with her whiney voice and no talent self.
btw Price's version is also a remake.
2007-06-04 18:35:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the only good part in the entire 2005 version was when paris hilton got killed. i can't stand that talentless little skank.
the original movie was great, though.
2007-05-28 04:44:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Maxwell's right. Colombian Coffee. Want something different? Skip Starbucks and head to Juan Valdez Café.
2016-05-19 22:33:41 · answer #8 · answered by arletha 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i havent seen the original house of wax but the latest one i thaught was awsome! especialy the part where the guy tried to get the wax off the other guys face and his cheek peeled off!! amazing film
2007-05-28 04:49:36 · answer #9 · answered by mikusss 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i liked the old one better. i saw it before i went to seethe new house of wax and the new one just wasnt as good in my opinion
2007-05-28 04:48:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋