fireballs & tsunami

Any horror film fan knows that even bad scary movies are sometimes great scary movies. After all, some of the most acclaimed horror films rely on the simplest of plots. Horror films don’t necessarily need a big budget, impressive acting, or even a competent director to succeed. While the definition of a successful horror film depends on individual taste, one question viewers seem to consistently ask is: “Was it scary?”

But what makes a scary movie? A bloated budget (The Shining), or a grainy, documentary feel (The Blair Witch Project)? A cast of legitimate actors (The Exorcist), or a cast of amateurs (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre)? Genre self-reflexivity (Scream), or a non-chalant disregard for the typical formula (The Evil Dead, Sleepaway Camp)? Comical (Dead Alive, Shaun of the Dead), or somber (The Brood)? The employment of topical fears of technology (Videodrome, Ringu, Poltergiest, Fear Dot Com, 976-EVIL), or a mundane, time/space-transcending setting (Deliverance, Ms. 45, Psycho)? There is no answer; there is no guarantee that any given horror film will succeed either commercial or critically. However, the beauty of the horror genre is that production costs can be kept so low that making a horror movie poses little risk to a filmmaker. Like a pornographic film, a horror film can often find a fanbase without even trying.

The horror industry has long pandered to the collective public fears and anxieties — for instance, the RKO sci-fi/horror pictures of the 1950s and 1960s, as a filmic response to Communism (The Hitch-hiker, Invasion of the Body Snatchers), nuclear threat (The Blob), and in later years, the space program (2001: A Space Odyssey), the women’s movement (Last House on the Left), racial tension (Night of the Living Dead) — and readily taken advantage of potential fanbases — such as the abundance of teenagers in the 1950s and 1960s as a result of the post-war baby boom. One must wonder, now, if it’s possible for a filmmaker to create a horror film that offers no social commentary whatsoever and fails to educate the viewer in any way.

One such film is House of Wax (not a remake of the 1953 Vincent Price film).

I ordered this little gem of a film from my *new* Netflix account because, hell, for a flat rate of less than $20 a month, I plan on taking advantage of this bottomless source of horrible, horrible films that I wouldn’t dream of spending $11 on in the theater. House of Wax concerns itself with a group of young adults who set off on a road trip. While the travelers focus on attaining immediate satisfaction in two ways — 1) taking a detour in the woods to reach their destination more quickly, 2) engaging in spontaneous, reckless sex — they fail to notice that they’ve stumbled into an “off the map” town deep in the woods whose main attraction is a House of Wax, which they quickly realize functions as a wax-drenched burial ground for unsuspecting travelers.

As I said, this film offers no social commentary at all, and taught me nothing. The plot is formulaic, the deaths are predictable, the villains are caricaturistic, the victims are expectedly hapless and dim-witted, and the setting is typical (the deep woods). Upon finishing my viewing of House of Wax tonight, I honestly couldn’t determine whether or not I enjoyed it. I experienced this same sense of ambiguity after watching Wrong Turn a few months ago: another film that was likable, entertaining enough to hold my interest, but completely formulaic, unrealistic, and poorly-written to boot. After a few moments of consideration, and a few swigs of my Mint Snapple, however, I decided that I did not enjoy House of Wax.

While the film’s finale of is pretty spectacular — imagine a wax-based museum ablaze — the rest of the film offers leaves a lot to be desired in the way of plot, script, and acting (insert waxing/waning joke here). The film’s few funny highlights include multiple characters uttering co-star Paris Hilton’ real-life catch-phrase “That’s hot,” and, um, I think that’s about it. Is your interest piqued? Probably not, but this piece of trash is worth a rental if you’re paying a monthly rate for unlimited DVDs.

You: “Huh? Why would I want to rent a piece of trash?” Great question, guy! My answer is, just as, say, journalists or lawyers are wise to study subjects contradistinct to their own vocation, I feel it’s important to suffer some bad films in order to make you appreciate quality films even more.

And now, since inconsistency is my modus op, I would like to share my list of films that NO ONE SHOULD EVER HAVE TO ENDURE: Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan; Closer; What Women Want; Moonlight Mile; Driven; Hollywood Homocide, Ghost Ship; Varsity Blues; Kinsey; Disturbing Behavior; The Bronx Executioner; Anger Management; The Family Man; Runaway Bride; Forces of Nature; My Big Fat Greek Wedding; Bad Santa; Ju-On: The Grudge; Full Frontal; Riding in Cars with Boys; Sweet November (remake); State and Main; Any Given Sunday (the first and only film I ever walked out on).

This entry was posted on Thursday, December 15th, 2005 at 3:10 am and is filed under Random, Film. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.