Connect with us

Editorials

In Defense Of ‘House of Wax’ – Anniversary Edition!

Published

on

House of Wax

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!

A journalist for Bloody Disgusting since 2015, Trace writes film reviews and editorials, as well as co-hosts Bloody Disgusting's Horror Queers podcast, which looks at horror films through a queer lens. He has since become dedicated to amplifying queer voices in the horror community, while also injecting his own personal flair into film discourse. Trace lives in Austin, TX with his husband and their two dogs. Find him on Twitter @TracedThurman

Editorials

‘Arachnid’ – Revisiting the 2001 Spider Horror Movie Featuring Massive Practical Effects

Published

on

arachnid

A new breed of creature-features was unleashed in the 1990s and continued well into the next decade. Shaking off the ecological messaging of the past, these monsters existed for the sake of pure mayhem. Just to name a few: Tremors, The Relic, Anaconda, Godzilla, Deep Rising and Lake Placid all showcased this trend of irreverent creature chaos. Reptiles and other scaly beasts proved to be a popular source of inspiration for these films, but for that extra crawly experience, bugs were the best and quickest route. Spiders, in particular, led some of the worst infestations on screen in the early 2000s. And on the underbelly of this creeping new wave — specifically the direct-to-video sector — hangs an overlooked offering of spider horror: Arachnid.

In 2000, Brian Yuzna and Julio Fernández launched the Spanish production company Fantastic Factory. The Filmax banner’s objective was to create modestly budgeted genre films for international distribution. And while they achieved their goal — a total of nine English-language films were produced and shipped all across the globe — Fantastic Factory ultimately closed up shop after only five years. Arachnid, directed by Jack Sholder (Alone in the Dark, A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge, The Hidden) and based on a script by Mark Sevi, was the second project from the short-lived genre house. Yuzna was drawn to the concept largely because of its universal appeal; a monster was marketable in any region, regardless of cultural preferences or restrictions. There was also the fact that spiders give everyone a case of the heebie-jeebies.

By having extraterrestrial forces be the cause of the spiders’ mutism and immensity as well as other urgent problems within the story, Arachnid incidentally pays respect to Hollywood’s golden age of schlock filmmaking. The opening sequence indeed shows a stealth plane’s pilot (Jesús Cabrero) trailing a UFO and its translucent passenger to an island in the South Pacific, but the alien business is kept to a minimum going forward. There is no time to process this seismic revelation of life beyond Earth before moving on to the film’s central plot. 

arachnid

Pictured: Alex Reid, Chris Potter and Neus Asensi’s characters get trapped in the spider’s web in Arachnid.

Several months since the E.T. was last sighted — and after being snuffed out by one of its own accidental creations — a medical team from Guam heads to Celebes (better known as Sulawesi nowadays), in search of whatever is behind a new illness. The doctors (played by José Sancho and Neus Asensi) already suspected a spider bite, although they failed to consider the biter could be the size of a tank. With The Descent’s Alex Reid as the snarky pilot of this doomed expedition, one who has ulterior motives for accepting the job, the film’s core characters go off in search of a spider and, hopefully, a cure.

The title makes it seem as if there is only the one arachnid in the story, but once Chris Potter and Reid’s characters plus their team step foot on the island, they encounter other altered arthropods. Yuzna felt Sevi’s script needed more creatures along the way, especially before the spider showed up in full view. The bug horror commences as one gunsman succumbs to a burrowing breed of crab-sized ticks, and random characters fend off a horrific centipede with reptilian qualities. These are just the appetizers before the greatest arachnid of them all arrives. The late Ravil Isyanov, here playing a zealous but sympathetic arachnologist, becomes a human Lunchable for the spider’s eggs. And one of the doctors gets a face full of corrosive spider spew. So, there is no shortage of grisly predation in the film, with a few bits of the monsters’ handiwork possessing a haunting quality to them.

Shot quickly and cheaply, Arachnid is fast-food horror. It’s convenient and designed for immediate consumption, and will likely not linger on the palate. Usually there is not a lot worth remembering with these slapdash genre productions, however, this is one case of spider horror where the extra effort made a difference. Apart from the egregious use of digital imagery in the outset, Jack Sholder’s film primarily employs practical effects. And these are not rubber spiders dangling from strings or being flung at the actors, either. Fantastic Factory aimed much higher by securing DDTSFX (Pan’s Labyrinth, Hellboy II: The Golden Army) and creature designer and makeup artist Steve Johnson (Species, Blade II).

arachnid

Pictured: One of the spider’s web-covered victims in Arachnid.

Arachnid, while far from flawless, somewhat redeems itself by having chosen practical effects and animatronics over CGI, which had become the new normal in these kinds of films. And this class of creature-feature was definitely not getting the sort of advanced VFX found in the likes of Eight Legged Freaks. Steve Johnson’s spider was not the easiest prop to work with, and it lacks the movement and versatility of a digital depiction. However, there is no beating that sense of weight and occupation of space that makes a tangible monster more intimidating. Viewers will have trouble recalling the human characters long after watching Arachnid, yet the humongous headliner remains the stuff of nightmares.

Over the years, the director has spoken critically of the film. He originally held off on agreeing to the offer to direct in hopes that another project, a Steven Seagal picture, would finally manifest. No such luck, and Sholder accepted Arachnid only on account of his needing the work. He said of the film: “I thought I could […] make it halfway decent, but I discovered there wasn’t a whole lot I could do.” Nevertheless, Sholder’s experience as a director of not exactly high-brow yet still rather entertaining horror is evident in what he has since called a “dud.” While there is no denying the reality and outcome of Arachnid, even the most mediocre films have their strokes of brilliance, small as they may be.

Arachnid

Pictured: The poster for Arachnid.

Continue Reading