Jaume Collet-Serra‘s 2005 House of Wax remake is a mashup of influences and intentions. It’s supposedly based on Andre DeToth‘s 1953 thriller of the same name, itself a remake of 1933’s Mystery of the Wax Museum — but you couldn’t tell based on watches alone.

Collet-Serra admits in Fangoria Magazine that his House of Wax is essentially a remake of 1979’s Tourist Trap by “everything but name” — studio heads chose to capitalize on “House of Wax” nostalgia — abandoning Vincent Price’s betrayed sculptor and Grand Guignol theatrics. By those standards, wouldn’t 1988’s Waxwork be a more fitting remake by association to DeToth’s Old Hollywood creepshow given wax vats and deceased display figures?

I digress because we’re here to honor another misunderstood aughts horror standout from Dark Castle Entertainment. Audiences snubbed House of Wax at the box office with a $12m premiere, although $70m worldwide sounds better after an additional $42m in VHS/DVD rentals. It’s right there alongside House on Haunted Hill (1999) and Thir13en Ghosts (2001) as over-the-top horror with sizable budgets that push all-in on atmosphere, this one through the representation of melty, gooey details that Collet-Serra insisted remain as practical as possible. If there’s any justice, Malignant will prove to studios how much horror fans miss the extravagance and full-send attitude of those wrongfully bashed 2000s genre releases like House of Wax.

The Approach

There’s little connective tissue between 1953’s House of Wax and 2005’s House of Wax outside sculptures and murders. Chad and Carey W. Hayes make their feature screenplay debut before The Conjuring fame, laying the foundation for a wax museum thriller that becomes the slasher antithesis to Andre DeToth’s mysterious parlor tricks. It’s clear that Jaume Collet-Serra adores both House of Wax (1953) and Tourist Trap — maybe the latter a tad more — but it’s hard to gauge his House of Wax as a remake. Collet-Serra isn’t playing into an artist’s obsessive showmanship or fiddling with bright marquee lights. His House of Wax is pitch black, mucky, and through-and-through an aughts slasher menace.

Carly Jones (Elisha Cuthbert) and brother Nick (Chad Michael Murray) are two in a crew driving to some high-profile college football game. Blake’s (Robert Ri’chard) GPS navigation leads to a failed shortcut and overnight camping, where a local peeper gets his headlight busted by Nick’s aggression. The next day, Carly’s boyfriend Wade (Jared Padalecki) finds his muscle car’s fan belt broken, which puts a halt on further travel. Carly and Wade end up in a small town called Ambrose for replacement parts, but it’s dead silent outside of mechanic garage owner Bo (Brian Van Holt). Wade trespasses into a wax museum while waiting for Bo’s assistance, the first in a series of events that reveal the uncharted town’s deepest secret caked in candle residue.

By watching House of Wax (1953), House of Wax (2005), and Tourist Trap as a triple bill in the same afternoon, I’m on the fence about which bookend shares a stronger tether to the remake. I’ll admit Collet-Serra conceptually favors Tourist Trap the way Carly’s crew stumbles upon the remote attraction, how Bo is the friendly owner with a dark side, the subplot about brothers — although I also believe we’re quick to write off the original’s influence. Collet-Serra rearranges elements like ending his House of Wax with the museum inferno that’s alternatively Professor Henry Jarrod’s (Vincent Price) motivation to become a serial killer. The same method of spraying bodies in a wax recipe that adheres to victim flesh is shared by Henry and Bo’s deformed brother Vincent (a direct namesake nod), one in a dungeon laboratory (transforming corpses), the other showcasing the 2000s aesthetic of rusted pipes and grimy deviant hideouts (subjects can stay alive).

Upon careful back-to-back-to-back consideration, I’d state that House of Wax (2005) equally hybridizes House of Wax (1953) and Tourist Trap. Maybe we’re all just clamoring for a more direct comparison because House of Wax (2005) is technically billed as a “remake,” so if it’s not House of Wax (1953), there *has* to be an “origin” elsewhere.

Does it Work?

It’s difficult to fault any remake that embraces a new identity, but as a revamp of Andre DeToth’s slick handcrafted whodunit, House of Wax (2005) follows familiar backroads. Outside Jaume Collet-Serra’s steadfast insistence that effects remain practical unless impossible, there’s nothing memorable beyond dillweed young adults getting slain one by one. Chad and Carey W. Hayes’ script is reminiscent of too many remakes around the time, from Black Christmas (2006) to Friday the 13th (2009). Paris Hilton squeals as the hottie blonde Paige Edwards, Jared Padalecki pouts as the jealous lover, Chad Michael Murray commits stupid actions that beg for consequences — you’re not here for defining character portraits. Stereotypical horror stooges with stunted maturity complexes act like fools and find themselves in danger. We know this blueprint.

Stacking House of Wax (1953) and House of Wax (2005) makes obvious the production’s disinterest in recreation. Maybe that’s felt as Brian Van Holt becomes the ghost town mayor with parental hangups who isn’t as mortifying as Vincent Price’s vengeful molder. Perhaps emphasizing holy-effing-repulsive gore will have audiences missing the operatic, camera-hungry suspense that drips from Price’s commanding performance. House of Wax (2005) separates itself to a degree that could cause frustration because road head gags and constant split-ups replace something more exquisite. Such a far-flung approach does pale in comparison at times.

Although, there’s a freedom that Collet-Serra engages by breaking the shackles of rigid connections. It’s a gamble and one that’s sunk other remakes which try and fail to bury their sources. It takes confidence and hubris to challenge horror fans with remakes that become a different beast. When House of Wax (2005) swings, it swings so immeasurably hard that you become engulfed by the originality taking a new shape. Collet-Serra gives audiences a reason to respect his vision, which shifts the conversation from a disrespectful remake that’s silly enough to think its ideas are better to an aughts horror example that runs crazy with a mind of its own.

The Result

House of Wax (2005) wipes its bloody oils on Vincent Price’s cape and never looks back like a 2000s slasher that’s as mean as they come. Jaume Collet-Serra’s dedication to visuals and aesthetics is still a testament to the marriage of digital and physical effects practices, most notably as a wax museum made entirely of wax liquefies around Carly and Nick. Collet-Serra infamously used peanut butter to mirror warm, malleable solids as Elisha Cuthbert and Chad Michael Murray exhaustively trudge through the nightmare goop. It’s something that’s never been replicated on screen, made possible by Dark Castle Entertainment’s $40m budget.

Deeper still, Collet-Serra’s effects masters ensure no death is unmemorable. House of Wax (2005) is a morbid showcase beyond the “See Paris Die” promise. Don’t get me wrong, Paige’s cranial impalement is a brute atrocity as Vincent hurls a pipe like a javelin. Not to be outdone are Wade’s Achilles tendon slice, videographer Dalton Chapman’s (Jon Abrahams) sickeningly swift beheading, and even Blake’s neck knife puncture. Animated effects might struggle to sell Vincent’s disfiguration or as the wax museum distorts from the outside. Still, it’s so minimal compared to the incredible melting mansion that’s become an aughts horror signature. By the time Carly and Nick crawl from between collapsing signage letters, that’s all viewers care to remark about — remake qualifications aren’t relevant anymore.

It’s more than a generic slasher where hardbody archetypes meet crimson-coated fates — well, mostly. The sibling backstory about brain cysts and Bo’s influence on Vincent does not grip me in the same way Black Christmas (2006) makes generic monsters of its antagonists. Yet, the vulgar dread in Vincent’s masterworks still exceeds expectations under a magnifying glass. When we realize Vincent’s figures can be cocooned by wax while alive — Wade’s eyes dart in panic as Dalton accidentally peels cheek flesh away with a smudge — that’s the pinnacle of fear. It’s one thing for Vincent Price’s Henry Jarrod to use deceased models; it’s another for Collet-Serra to make Henry’s psychotic methods seem pedestrian as shattered wax reveals either exposed muscle or decaying bodies underneath. Even next to House on Haunted Hill and Thir13en Ghosts, House of Wax (2005) might be Dark Castle Entertainment’s most visually engaging spectacle.

The Lesson

I’d generally advise against filmmakers veering remakes this far off course, but House of Wax (2005) is an outlying anomaly. Credit Jaume Collet-Serra, one of today’s most dependable blockbuster filmmakers (no sarcasm to detect). His House of Wax might have more in common with The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and Tourist Trap, but there are still countless odes to the 50s classic. Even Wade’s joke about lighting a wax statue’s dress on fire carries more meaning than a clever foreshadow — Henry Jarrod watches his beautiful craftsmanship burn for insurance money because his business partner lights Marie Antionette’s gown on fire. It’s a House of Wax remake adapted into a gutty, go-for-broke slasher that fits into the era’s most popular themes (“dark and gritty,” gore extremism, killers with dingy workshops).

So what did we learn?

• Practical effects are always better, even when blended with digital. Don’t start with me.
• There’s a reason titles like House on Haunted Hill (1999), Thir13en Ghosts (2001), and House of Wax (2005) are finding revivals — look what kinds of horrors can be built for $40m.
• You better be confident if you’re going to dare take your remake to uncharted territory. 
• Dark Castle Entertainment hits different.

Talk about a directorial debut. Jaume Collet-Serra tackles the smooth and creamy scope of House of Wax (2005) like there’s nary a challenge melting away your entire finale location. Actors stomp through buttery sludge, which can only be the most unpleasant sensation, but it’s in the name of uncompromised aesthetic bravery. Collet-Serra is a madman for even attempting what happens in the backend of House of Wax (2005) — but his execution explains his career’s success since this underappreciated debut. Imagine being the critic who claimed this remake is “chock full of everything a director shouldn’t do in a film.”

In Revenge of the Remakes, columnist Matt Donato takes us on a journey through the world of horror remakes. We all complain about Hollywood’s lack of originality whenever studios announce new remakes, reboots, and reimaginings, but the reality? Far more positive examples of refurbished classics and updated legacies exist than you’re willing to remember (or admit). The good, the bad, the unnecessary – Matt’s recounting them all.