House of Wax(1953)

[The Walking Dude]

The one that got the whole ball rolling for Vincent Price - his career would never be the same after this role.It's a film so groundbreaking that it took over 50 years to catch up to the trend.Although 3D remakes are the norm nowadays, this certainly wasn't the case back in '53,when Warner Bros. decided to mount a remake of Mystery of the Wax Museum,which I believe was a major turning point for the genre.

For the record (if you haven't seen it) Price plays Henry Jarrod who is burned (literally) by his business partner and is left for dead as a fire consumes both his museum, and his creations.Then some time later, a series of unexplained disappearances lead investigators to notice uncanny similarities to the sculptures in a newly opened museum.

For me this role sums up Price's greatness - a villain who's plight you feel empathy with,in fact in this day and age Jarrod would be the hero of the story.

Love this one to death.

[GL]

I'll give it a 4. It doesn't need the 3D and in fact doesn't even look like it was filmed for that style, the death scenes are pretty brutal for the time and the opening and closing are a lot of fun with the fires raging out of control make for a good time, though it is somewhat slower paced in the middle sections when all that happens is a relatively lame love story set-up to give the twist some merit. Still, one of Price's upper-tier efforts despite not being his best.

[The Walking Dude]

I've never seen it in 3D but would sure love to. In fact if they ever release a remastered blu-ray in 3D it would be make me upgrade to a new blu ray and television.

[GL]

I say fuck 3D. The inventor of that gimmick needs to be fucked in the ass with a stone dildo then broken off and beaten over the head with it.

[HNT]

I give this one a 4, but really more of a 4.5. Its an awesome movie.

As for 3d, I think that's a bit harsh, GL. Personally, I think it depends a lot on the 3d technology used, and the era the film was made. The first generation 3D employed in HOuse of Wax and most older 3D films was definitely not particularly convincing or worthwhile. It was a fairly cheesy gimmick, although I have to admit that as a lover of horror films and the cheesy gimmicks employed by William Castle in some of the genre classics, I don't hate it as much as some do.

Modern 3D is an entirely different animal, though. The technology behind RealD is simply something else all together. Its truly impressive, and when done right, can truly enhance the viewing experience. Have you seen a modern (post-Avatar) 3D film in the theaters, GL? If not, I suggest you do so. And, don't necessarily make it a horror film, either. It works best in some of the Disney/Pixar films, which look absolutely mind blowing in 3D these days

[GL]

It's a principle thing, HNT. If you can't sell a film by it's own internal forces, don't release the movie. I don't care about the experience it gives, how good it looks or how fluid the process is, the film itself is the only thing that matters when I watch it, with all outside influences surrounding it completely null and void. It's the film itself, that's it, I don't care about anything else and whatever other tactic or gimmick is used to enhance that is totally worthless and screams desperation.

[HNT]

But, is that really a reasonable thing to say? There are those back in the day that would have told you that color films were a gimmick, and that if the film couldn't survive in black and white without the gimmick it sucked. Same thing for talkies. If a film wasn't adequate silent, what was the point? Now, don't get me wrong. I am not exactly saying that 3D is a technological beakthrough on that level, but I am absolutely telling you that it is much more than just a gimmick these days. Used properly, it really does enhance a film. When overused, it can be lame and cheesy. Just like any other new technology. Advances in special effects have offered the opportunity to produce more and more realistic gore. A modern horror film has far more gore than a classic 1930's film, obviously. Is the gore a completely wasteful gimmick that they should completely ditch? Some would say so, but I don't think so. And, judging only from conversations I've had with you, I doubt you feel that way either.

[Jen]

I don't really see what the issue is. Just choose to not watch the movie in 3D or not watch it at all. I can definitely see having a preference. But I don't feel that strongly about it one way or another. I do think it can enhance the viewing experience of some films and can be a lot of fun. Sometimes it doesn't. Just like with anything else.

Anyway, I love this one. Probably my favorite Price film except for House on Haunted Hill and House of Usher. And possibly The Abominable Dr. Phibes. I give it a 4.

[GL]

Feb 23, 2011 11:14:07 GMT -5 HNT said:

But, is that really a reasonable thing to say? There are those back in the day that would have told you that color films were a gimmick, and that if the film couldn't survive in black and white without the gimmick it sucked. Same thing for talkies. If a film wasn't adequate silent, what was the point? Now, don't get me wrong. I am not exactly saying that 3D is a technological beakthrough on that level, but I am absolutely telling you that it is much more than just a gimmick these days. Used properly, it really does enhance a film. When overused, it can be lame and cheesy. Just like any other new technology. Advances in special effects have offered the opportunity to produce more and more realistic gore. A modern horror film has far more gore than a classic 1930's film, obviously. Is the gore a completely wasteful gimmick that they should completely ditch? Some would say so, but I don't think so. And, judging only from conversations I've had with you, I doubt you feel that way either.

Those are all internal forces within the movie, forces brought upon by the story the film itself is telling. I'm talking more about the outside ones, like the William Castle gimmicks where the viewing experience is altered with an enhanced portion that is only avaliable in a specific format outside of the norm (shocked seats in the theaters, flying skeletons, 3D glasses, etc) that I can't stand. If I have to alter the viewing experience with all of these outside forces put into place in order to get the full effect of the film at hand, that to me is where I draw the line. Adding gore, sound or color isn't enhancing the viewing experience in the same manner as if I were to have to have a timed buzzer go off on my couch cushions in order to be in the same conditions that people originally saw a film. You can't deny there's a difference between the two, and that is what I'm talking about here.

[The Walking Dude]

I think you need to take into account the era that these gimmicks were in their heyday.Television was taking over which had producers and distributors worried,hence the birth of 3D and the other Castle gimmicks.My favourite was the life insurance policy that was offered on a film who's name escapes me at the moment. It probably explains the second era of 3D as well, at the birth of home video.

[HNT]

Well, with respect to William Castle, it has to do mostly with the fact that horror films were pretty much universally viewed as B movies at the time, and only subsequently have some people revisited some of the classics and determined that they were legitimately high quality movies. They use gimmicks to sell B movies even today. I think we have to keep in mind that it was a different era so there was no such thing as a direct to video release, but the Universal creature features and William Castle films of their day were equivalent to today's Troma or Ghosthouse films. Those movies are all still sold with cheesy gimmicks to this day. You just don't necessarily notice because they are direct to video releases.

When evaluating things like this, you can't allow the fact that a modern viewer thinks Frankenstein or Dracula is a classic to color your perception of the fact that they were considered insignificant films at the time.

[GL]

I think you should all know me enough by now to know that what I type next shouldn't be a surprise:

I couldn't give a flying fuck what the historical legacy of a film or the conditions that were prevalent at the time which brought about a film's condition. It only matters that I enjoy my time with a film, regardless of the conditions, time-period of it's release or any other outside force that I really see no part in judging a film on.

The difference I've been arguing all along against has been the outside forces that were used in the viewing experience, not anything within the film itself. Those William Castle gimmicks I've mentioned, the buzzers in the seats, the 3D glasses, the insurance policies, the coward's corner, all of them, are all based on forces outside of the movie, used to enhance the film-going experience within the theater itself. Those, and those alone, are what I'm going off about, as that has no real bearing on a film at all if you can't experience them in every single viewing of a film.

If everytime I have to view "The Tingler," I need to set-up a shocker in my couch to replicate the exact same viewing experience as the people had who originally saw the film in theaters did, that is just infuriating and utterly pointless. I shouldn't have to outfit my house with all of those extra enhancements simply to watch a film when I don't have to change anything at all in order to watch, enjoy and be entertained by thousands of others that aren't done in that format. Essentially, I'm being punished simply by not being alive at the time of the film's original release, which is not my fault that my parents weren't even in their teens yet by the time of the film's original release, and yet those who were have the experience of all these gimmicks yet I don't because I came to it later and I don't believe that's fair to do to the viewer. I can't replicate the experience, so why should I care to see it in such a manner? Therefore, don't employ it to begin with.

[HNT]

I see what you are saying. I just think that you may not have given enough credit to the advances made in 3D technology. Old 3D was cheesy. Modern 3D is much more convincing and cool. Not to mention, while you cannot hook up a tingler buzzer in your couch very easily to replicate the original cinema experience, I most certainly CAN watch a 3D film in 3D in my house, and so can anyone else willing to purchase the equipment to do so. To me, that is no different than saying a film might have been color in the theater, but unless you were willing to buy a color television, you had to watch it in black and white at home when it came on TV.

[GL]

It's not that it looks good, it's the general practice of it. I've seen enough screenshots and such to see that the technology behind it looks great, and is backed up by comments from many of people who've gone to see it, but I'm talking about the general practice. I don't buy into that sort of practice like we've been discussing here and see it all as a series of worthless tools to trick people into thinking they're seeing a good film because they're enjoying the experience but not the movie itself, the most important part of the whole affair.

[HNT]

So, then are color movies a gimmick? Were they when people could only watch black and white at home, so the theater experience could not be replicated at home? What about when I had a full screen television, so it was not pleasant to watch widescreen films at home? Was it a gimmick that the frame in the theater had a different and more complete image than I got at home?

What I am saying is that the line you are drawing at 3D is arbitrary. You can experience 3D at home if you are willing to pay for it. That has always been true for cutting edge technology in film, dating back to the first time they sold color television sets. These are not things that are extraneous to the film, or at least 3D is not more extraneous than any number of other things that you accept willingly.

Anyway, I think this is an interesting discussion. I definitely see where you are coming from even though I disagree, and I'd love to know what everyone else is thinking on the subject