House of Wax - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

House of Wax Reviews

Page 1 of 950
January 7, 2018
I would say that viewing this just as an enjoyable teen horror film, it's better than average. The characters are likable, though dumb and disposable, and the story itself isn't awful. The writers actually did more with this story than what I was expecting. But when viewing this movie as a film for adults and on its technical aspects, it's just passable. Most adults will probably forget the movie within a day. There's nothing new here or anything done better than average. But it's not infuriating with how average this movie is. It's just boring and ends up being too safe. Again, teenagers will probably enjoy this but most will probably just forget it.
½ November 12, 2017
Scary! An effective slasher that keeps you on the edge of your seat. (First and only full viewing - Fall 2006)
November 9, 2017
More like a Hills Have Eyes rip-off than House of Wax remake
September 27, 2017
I don't know why....But this is one of my more enjoyable cheesy horror films. I remember watching it on MTV one night it was on replay and found it on DVD at old suncost store. I love the cheesyness of the film. acting and special effects are so bad it's actually funny at some points... kinda would love a number 2.
½ July 30, 2017
Blah. Paris Hilton. Blah. Its whatever. Something to go to sleep to if you're a horror fan.
½ May 6, 2017
nice movie. jared padalecki. grrr.
March 29, 2017
One of my more favorite horror movies. Great villain and fun death scenes. Great cast of actors.
March 15, 2017
This movie follows what most horror films do in the 2000s, some 20 something year old college students get stranded in a town with a museum made of wax. Only to find someone has been kidnapping people and turning them into wax figures. Alots of dumb characters that do really dumb things. It follows horror movie troupes that have already been before a million times. As you thought, they all die one by one and only two people make out alive. Nothing unique here.
March 11, 2017
Unlike the Excellent Vincent Price 1953 film "House of Wax" which itself was a remake of a 1930s movie called "Mysteries of a Wax Museum". This 2005 remake unfortunately titled "House of Wax" follows in the classic tradition of remakes of completely snuffing out any hyped expectations we had prior to watching the film. Now, what's wrong with it you ask? Well the thing that did it for me was that it had almost nothing in the slightest to do with the 1953 Vincent Price remake nor the original 1930's film. Remakes are generally created to modernize an original story/film to reflect the common culture, not to create something that has nothing to do with the original! But wait! It gets better the original title for this film was to be "Wax House, Baby" most likely to be an unrelated film entirely until Warner Bros decided to change it to a more profitable "House of wax."
So now that we got that out of the way, let us begin with the story! A road trip consisting of a bunch of teenagers takes a rapid detour downhill, as the teens decide to camp out for the night before heading to their destination. A run-in with a creepy truck driver at the camp site leaves everyone disturbed. They then wake up the next morning to find that their car has been screwed with, conveniently leaving them with no transportation what so damn ever. They then decide to stay in a nearby town with the main attraction of that town being a wax museum. And as you can probably guess most of the characters don't make it, as "House of Wax" becomes nothing more than a cheap Slasher film full of sex, blood, and stupid decisions of the main characters. Great! The overall story's out of the way, now let's discuss the next problem people had with this film, Paris Hilton. To be fair she wasn't as abominable as she was in " The Hottie and the Nottie" and in fact does rather a fair job given the material she had to work with. I'll even go to this extent and say that at least she has some talent and actually tries to do something productive unlike how you say "The Kardashians" so to say that she is the worst aspect of the movie isn't really fair seeing that she at least put some effort in as well as the fact that an actor is only as good as the script.
In conclusion, I have come to hate this film a little less than I originally did but not enough to give it a good rating. I give it 2 /5 stars
½ March 7, 2017
Good idea and bad story
½ March 4, 2017
Surprisingly enjoyable for a remake. There's nothing groundbreaking here; it's just a competently-made, thoroughly entertaining, standard slasher romp.
February 17, 2017
After watching #Horror, I needed to watch something good, so I was flipping around Netflix, and saw that Jared Padalecki was in this one. I had watched it when it first came out on DVD, but I didn't remember him being in it at all. I enjoy Supernatural, and remembered that I liked this movie, so I gave it another watch.

There is something really creepy about wax museums, at least to me. I watched Waxwork when I was a teenager, and it was one of the horror movies that has really stuck with me. While that one had the displays come alive, House of Wax just has crazy people encasing people in wax. No, nothing disturbing about that at all.

Even as a second watch, and knowing the premise of the movie, I still enjoyed it. I do remember when I saw it the first time I enjoyed the twist 3/4 through the movie, and right at the end. How it ends did lend itself to a sequel, although it would have to be in a different museum.

House of Wax includes all the goodies that one looks for in a slasher; lots of people getting killed in weird ways, gratuitous sex scenes, and a crazy psycho that slowly stalks his victims, but still manages to catch up to them. I also got a bit of a Psycho (the movie) vibe off of this one. I think with the quiet, creepiness of the town, and the woman who peeks out the window.
½ January 15, 2017
Not bad. Has its moments
Super Reviewer
½ January 8, 2017
Picture it, 2005 in the United States. America was just made their second biggest mistake in their presidential elections when they re-elected George W. Bush. I'm sure you all know the biggest mistake. It happened recently. The number one song in the U.S, the same week of this film's release, was the awful Hollaback Girl by Gwen Stefani. The #1 album that same week was Something to Be by Rob Thomas. Remember him? And Paris Hilton was famous for, essentially, being famous. This was back in the day when I was still high school, so some of you, at least some of the younger people, might not even know who this woman is. Let's just say that she was Kim Kardashian before Kim Kardashian was ever known. Paris had more of a shooting star quality, she was gone almost as fast as she hit the 'big time'. Which is unlike the Kardashians, who have stuck around longer than anyone ever wanted them to and who I wish would just go away live their lives in obscurity. The point of this all is the fact that when this movie was announce, it was sort of a big deal because of Paris Hilton being in it, even though her fame was fading by this point. I say big deal in that people wanted to see her die a gory death because they hated her so much. And because there was a sort of morbid curiosity to see how bad of an actress she would be. Twelve years removed from the film's release I can say that, in all honest, Paris Hilton isn't as bad of an actress as one would reasonably expect. She's obviously not super talented by any means, but she wasn't bad to the point that she deserved a Razzie nomination for worst actress. She was barely in the movie, but she was perfectly fine in the scenes she was in. And, honestly, I think she could have done well in films like this, where they don't really require much in the way of acting talent. But this movie isn't about Paris Hilton nor is it centered around her character. Admittedly speaking, this is about as generic a slasher as you will ever get. It has the basic story of a group of teens, or in this case adults in their 20s, being hunted down by a murderous madman, or madmen in this case. You've seen it before and you will certainly see it again until the end of time. Even with that, however, this is still a fairly decent movie with one of the coolest visual set pieces I've ever seen in a horror movie. It should be obvious the scene I'm talking about. Somebody starts a fire in the House of Wax, I don't remember the circumstances that led to it, and the wax figures and the house, which is made entirely of wax, start to melt. I don't know how to describe it properly, but the visuals of everything slowly melting was actually really fucking cool and, easily, the highlight of the entire damn film. There's just something grotesque yet oddly enthralling about seeing this house and the wax figures, made of actual human beings, just slowly melting away. I realize that the entire movie can't be like the third act, but the actual melting of the House of Wax is so inspired that you sort of wish that they serviced a considerably better movie than what we ended up getting. Which is, as I mentioned, a run-of-the-mill slasher with very little that differentiates it from other films in the genre. I never thought it was a bad movie, at any point actually. I just felt that, like I said, outside of the third act, it all felt a little too similar to other flicks in the same genre. There's nothing special for about 2/3rds of the film. Another problem is the film is that it's so damn long. There's no reason that this movie, and I went back and checked, should be 1 hour and 47 minutes long. Yes, really. It's unnecessarily long. It's almost 40 minutes into the movie before the villain, or one of them at least, appears. And then they kill off the majority of the characters in quick succession. There's almost 30 minutes left in the movie when all but two people are killed off, the most important characters of course. So the timing and pacing between each kill is awful. The movie takes too long to get going and when it does get going, it kills its characters so quickly that none of the deaths are remotely close to memorable. That's another thing, outside of the two that are left alive to battle the villains, there's no one character with anything resembling a personality. And that's not saying the protagonists are that great to begin with, but they have a somewhat decent backstory as it relates to the backstories of the villains. It's not good, but at least it's something. The pacing and length really were the best part of the movie. It's long, the characters are not all that interesting and the deaths come so quickly that it has no impact. The third act is excellent and actually worth seeing just because of how visually cool it is to watch an entire house of wax slowly melting. The rest of the movie, eh, you wouldn't be missing out. Average movie, but that's all due to the third act. I can't give this a recommendation when you take into consideration that I didn't enjoy about 2/3rds of this movie. Watch at your own risk, but you could always do worse.
December 1, 2016
As cheesy and predictable as it already is, Paris Hilton's mediocre acting only worsens it further.
½ October 14, 2016
Painfully bad in places, particularly the first 20 minutes, but once it gets going it has its moments.
July 31, 2016
Remake pas très ressemblant d'un film de 1953, House of Wax reste très classique dans son approche de slasher pour ado. Le seul passage vraiment sympa peut être la mort de Paris Hilton
July 12, 2016
Not a bad remake. It's always fun watching Paris Hilton get slaughtered.
½ July 3, 2016
love the premise of this one, and the execution is terrific, haunting atmosphere, clever editing, and fine actors....i have to admit it scare the hell out of me the first time I saw it.
great horror film
Page 1 of 950