Editorials
In Defense Of ‘House of Wax’ – Anniversary Edition!
Today is a very special day: it is the 10-year anniversary of the remake of House of Wax. Okay, I jest. It’s really not that special of a day, but I thought it would be appropriate to bring back our “In Defense Of” series to discuss what I think is a very underrated film. Is it perfect? No, but it’s a helluva lot better than its 25% Rotten Tomatoes score and 41 MetaCritic score would suggest. Plus, it’s fun!
Let’s get the obligatory Paris Hilton section out of the way first. I am not particularly for or against her so I won’t bash her or her acting, but casting her in House of Wax was definitely a publicity stunt. Her reality series The Simple Life (as well as her actual social life) was at the peak of its popularity, so it apparently looked like the smartest thing to do. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant, but really, she’s not bad in the movie. She does exactly what she is asked to do for the role of Paige (and her character isn’t even that annoying!). The best way to describe her casting is trendy, and everyone immediately hopped on the hate bandwagon. It’s depressing that House of Wax will forever be remembered as “that one where Paris Hilton gets a pole thrown through her face,” because it’s much more than that.
I think part of the reason I love this movie so much (and yes, I do love it) is simply because of nostalgia. The trailer was one of those that I would watch repeatedly (I just love that montage choir music at the end) and I gathered a bunch of friends to go see it in a theater the Friday it opened after school let out (I was a sophomore in high school at the time). It’s a strong trailer, to be sure. and it almost made my list of favorite horror movie trailers:
Looking back on some of the 2005 reviews for the film, the consensus seemed to be that it was too long, the first 40 or so minutes were too slow, the characters were dumb, the acting was poor, and the film was too vile/sadistic/violent. Most of the horror films coming out at the time were far more violent than House of Wax (Hostel would be released just eight months later), so those criticisms don’t make a lot of sense. I could just be desensitized, though. What say you on this subject?
From an effects and gore standpoint, House of Wax doesn’t disappoint. There aren’t many kills in the film, but each one of them stand out. While Hilton’s death gets the most discussion when the film is brought up, it’s the below scene that is one of the best set pieces in House of Wax (though not the best, which I’ll get to in a second):
It’s apparent that the film has a good sense of humor about itself, which is something that many critics at the time didn’t detect. This is why the characters making dumb decisions (one review even pointed out that they split up a record four times during the film) isn’t particularly bothersome. The film comes across like an extended (and violent) episode of Scooby-Doo, and viewing the film as such makes it much more entertaining to watch. Whether or not that was intentional, we’ll never know (director Jaume Collet-Serra also directed the 2009 film Orphan, so make of that what you will). The “bad acting” ties into that too, though I think that Elisha Cuthbert and Chad Michael Murray do a perfectly fine job playing estranged siblings.
House of Wax is long for a horror film. At 113 minutes, it wears out it’s welcome a little bit. The criticism that the first 40 minutes are slow is valid, and it could have done with about 10-15 minutes cut from the first act. The intention was probably to allow the audience to spend more time with the characters, but other than Cuthbert’s and Murray’s characters (with the possible exception of Jared Padalecki), they’re all pretty one-dimensional. Again, if you go into it with the Scooby-Doo mindset, that’s not a bad thing! But at nearly 2 hours, the film could have used a better editor.
My final point (and one that most critics agree on) is that the climax of the film is a beast. Some of the CGI is spotty (the shot of the exterior of the house warping has always looked laughably bad to me), but it’s a showstopper of a set piece if I ever saw one. I would argue that it’s the main reason to see the film, but as I’ve stated already, I think the whole thing is a blast.
What are your thoughts on House of Wax? Do you agree with me that it’s a fun, goofy Scooby-Doo-style romp? Or do you think it’s lazy filmmaking at its worst? Let me know in the comments below!
Pulitzer Prize-winning author Daniel Kraus took the literary world by storm back in 2023 with the release of his hit novel Whalefall. A terrifying yet intimate survival thriller with mythological undertones, the book was almost immediately bombarded with offers from movie studios wanting to adapt its claustrophobic imagery to the big screen.
Fast forward to June of 2026, and we finally got our first glimpse at Brian Duffield’s long-awaited adaptation of Whalefall, starring Austin Abrams as our unfortunate lead who gets swallowed alive by a sperm whale. While this two-and-a-half-minute teaser only covers the beginning of the story, it’s already been making waves online (and in-person at select 4DX promotional screenings) as one of the most stressful cinematic experiences of the year.
In fact, my own wife had to cover her eyes and exclaim, “You’re definitely not dragging me to watch this one” when we saw the whale’s jaws begin to close in on Abrams, with this incident alone already leaving me convinced that this will likely be one of the biggest genre hits of the year. With that in mind, I’d like to invite you to take a closer look at the teaser in order to break down interesting details and get a better idea of what’s in store for genre fans when the movie finally comes out this October.
Of course, as usual, don’t forget to comment below if you noticed something we didn’t!
Now, without further ado, here are five things we learned from the Whalefall trailer!
5. Austin Abrams Performed Many of His Own Stunts
Much like in his previous film, No One Will Save You, Duffield insisted that this visceral experience should be grounded by our main character’s believable reactions, regardless of the plot’s effects-heavy setup. That’s why the camera always makes sure to linger on Abrams through his diving mask, so we know that it’s really him going through this ordeal alongside the audience.
While plenty of CGI was used in order to bring this larger-than-life story to the big screen without killing our leading man, Abrams apparently insisted on performing many of his underwater stunts himself (several of which are visible in the trailer) – much to the chagrin of a worried Duffield and the flick’s stunt coordinator, Shauna Duggins.
4. The Film Seamlessly Transitions Between the California Coast and Underwater Sets
Duffield obviously wasn’t about to drag his crew out to the middle of the ocean and shoot inside a real sperm whale, but it’s reassuring to see the filmmaker blend on-location footage with the underwater tank segments and the literal belly of the whale set.
There may be plenty of CGI stitching these elements together, but the trailer shows us that only the truly impossible shots are completely digital, meaning that the filmmakers didn’t take the easy way out when it came to adapting this unique story.
3. The Whale is Only Part of the Story
Book adaptations tend to leave out inner monologues and the occasional flashback in order to streamline the narrative (which is one reason why it’s so difficult to translate Stephen King novels to the big screen), but a claustrophobic parable like Kraus’ Whalefall would get a bit dull after a while if the whole thing was entirely set within the creature’s stomach.
That’s why it’s such a relief that the trailer hints at how Duffield will also be adapting many of the book’s introspective moments chronicling our protagonist’s harsh upbringing under his troubled father. Not only do these inclusions give the audience some much-appreciated breathing room, but they also give Josh Brolin a chance to shine as a truly complicated character.
2. The Movie is Keeping the Book’s Scientific Accuracy…
While Kraus’ novel was inspired by a viral video of kayakers nearly being swallowed by a humpback whale, the writer ended up consulting with marine biologists about exactly what kind of situation might lead to a whale actually eating a human being alive.
The answer was surprisingly specific, as cetaceans are almost universally known to be friendly towards humans. However, even a gentle giant can make mistakes, and as we see in the trailer, Abrams’ unpleasant fate is more of an accident than anything else – with the massive sperm whale only trapping the poor diver in the first (and thankfully acid-free) chamber of its stomach due to a mix-up involving a giant squid.
Fortunately for the film’s special effects artists, they can now reference the first-ever footage of a real-life sperm whale chowing down on one such squid, as this freaky recording was released late last year.
1. …With a Catch!
Duffield may be doing his best to recreate the grounded (or is it submerged?) thrills of Kraus’ novel, but there are limits to what can be depicted onscreen while still guaranteeing an entertaining movie. That’s why it’s no surprise that Whalefall will take advantage of certain cinematic parlor tricks as the director tests the limits of both physics and biology so we can actually watch his movie.
For starters, the innards of the whale itself have been greatly exaggerated so there’s enough space to make out the action, and in the spirit of movies like Neil Marshall’s The Descent, there also seems to be plenty of non-diegetic lighting meant to show us what’s going on even if Abram’s character wouldn’t necessarily be able to see anything.
You must be logged in to post a comment.