Weekend Boxoffice Report, April 29-May 1

[cabbageboy 0]

You know what I am sick of hearing? That the Vincent Price House of Wax is the original House of Wax. Bullshit. The original version was Mystery of the Wax Museum, with Lionel Atwill and Fay Wray. I am flat out sick of this movie being so shamefully ignored (hell it's an extra on the House of Wax DVD and it's a better movie).

 

The sad thing is that this new House of Wax is probably a bad remake of a movie that was an inferior remake itself, merely designed to show off the new 3D of the day. Watch it without the 3D and it's not really any good.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

there are people that haven't seen Godfather I or II??? What kind of warped reality is this!? How are these people even allowed to talk about movies at all without having seen the Godfathers!?

 

and Fever Pitch getting a higher rating than one of the (arguably) top 10 greatest films of all time is hilarious.

[Mole 0]

He rated the movies differently. I'm sure he based FP next to other romantic comedies while basing the GF against......

 

Ahh fuck it, Ebert is an idiot.

[bob_barron 0]

He's an idiot for favouring one film he saw a month ago to a film he saw 30+ years later?

 

Ebert gave The Good, the Bad and the Ugly *** upon its release and said later 'I gave a 4 star movie three stars'.

 

Read the content of the review, rather then just the star rating. He has an opinion, and he's the best critic out there for a reason

[Mole 0]

Is he the best critic because you always agree with him? Or because you like he writing style? Or because he likes Duff?

 

Ebert is a good writer, but he it seems like everyone movie he reviews he likes. I want a critic who is an asshole half of the time

 

That is why I'm a big fan of Lisa Schwarzbaum because she is hard on movies and it takes a lot to impress her. That is the way a critic should be, not like Ebert who has gone soft.

[bob_barron 0]

You know who gave Fever Pitch an A? Lisa Schwarzbaum.

 

I like Ebert because his reviews are always very well written and if I see a movie and come back and read his review, there's stuff he wrote that I never noticed and he always makes me think about the movie I saw.

 

And Ebert ripped A Cinderella Story and Raise Your Voice to shreds- so no- he doesn't like Hilary movies. In fact that the Ebert and Roeper segment on RYV where they both mock the movie to no end is hilarious.

 

I don't think Ebert has gone soft. As long as his reviews are still very well written, I won't care what he gives a movie. The guy gave **** to Millions, which I thought was overly sentinemental shit. But I read his review, saw where he was coming from, and thought it was a very well written as usual. I just disagreed with him.

[LaParkaYourCar 0]

Just saw "House of Wax", and while it's hardly a masterpiece, I didn't think it was too bad. Some nice gore (scissors through the tentons, peeled off skin, and other goodies) and Eliza Cuthburt being a serious hottie. Granted, Paris Hilton can't act for shit (neither could the rest of the cast, save Cuthburt and Brian Van Holt as the evil twins) but she does get killed off good. Not a classic, but a decent time waster.

 

Also, it has a great tribute to "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?", though it's basically a "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" knock off with a bigger budget.

Wow if Elisha Cuthburt is the best actor in the movie then count me out.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

He's an idiot for favouring one film he saw a month ago to a film he saw 30+ years later?

If the latter film in question is unquestionably one of the greatest films ever made, and the former is "Fever Pitch", then yes.

[AndrewTS 0]

You know what I am sick of hearing?  That the Vincent Price House of Wax is the original House of Wax.  Bullshit.

Except that it wasn't called House of Wax, the Price version clearly inspired this one more, and the homages are to the Price HoW.

 

When The Island of Dr. Moreau (96 version) came out, more people were reminded of the '77 version than the '33 "Island of Lost Souls" for obvious reasons.

 

Despite the fact that both "remakes" sucked.

 

Although this House of Wax didn't really have anything to do with either of the prior ones. It was faithful compared to the "Earth vs. the Giant Spider" or "Teenage Caveman" remakes, though...

[cabbageboy 0]

Let's review: I SUPPOSE the original House of Wax had Vincent Price, but that wasn't the original version of the same story. That was Mystery of the Wax Museum. My point is that the original film is ignored for reasons I can't understand, and it's not the whole "It's in black and white" thing since it was in early two color Technicolor (in 1933).

 

Hell, this remake that just came out doesn't even have a mad sculptor in it...how the fuck can you do a House of Wax movie without a mad sculptor? A remake with someone like Anthony Hopkins would have been cool, but lord knows they have to make it a typical cheese slasher to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

 

Fuck them. If they want to remake something why not do a remake of The Most Dangerous Game? The plot has been done dozens of times but there's only really been one direct remake I think. Or as long as we're remaking 30s classics, let's do another Atwill/Wray movie: Doctor X. That movie is better than Mystery of the Wax Museum or House of Wax.

 

Rant over.

[razazteca 0]

House of Wax has more in common with the Zach Galligan, Waxwork than the Vincent Price film?

[AndrewTS 0]

House of Wax has more in common with the Zach Galligan, Waxwork than the Vincent Price film?

Aside from the dumb teens/college students getting killed, not really. It's say it has *about* the same amount to do with it as the Price version.

 

Let's review: I SUPPOSE the original House of Wax had Vincent Price, but that wasn't the original version of the same story. That was Mystery of the Wax Museum. My point is that the original film is ignored for reasons I can't understand, and it's not the whole "It's in black and white" thing since it was in early two color Technicolor (in 1933).

 

I'd guess the reason(s) would be that the movie is over 70 years old and it's not played on TV all the time like other movies from around that era.

 

Hardly anyone remembers Island of Lost Souls either.

 

There's very few horror movies around that time that are still remembered and watched today except for the Universal stuff, and Nosferatu.

 

Very few people living today have seen them back then, and it's rare for them to be seen on TV or released on DVD. Hell, I haven't seen the Mystery of the Wax Museum myself. Which edition of the Price House of Wax is it on? The UPC # would be helpful too.

 

If I had an all-region...

http://www.reviewcentre.com/reviews48005.html

 

Hell, this remake that just came out doesn't even have a mad sculptor in it...how the fuck can you do a House of Wax movie without a mad sculptor?

 

What would you call "Vincent"? The movie seemed to indicate that he was indeed a talented sculpter, human frames or not. Of course, he was a one-dimensional lunatic first and a sculptor second, so I guess that's what you mean.

[Mole 0]

You know who gave Fever Pitch an A? Lisa Schwarzbaum.

 

I like Ebert because his reviews are always very well written and if I see a movie and come back and read his review, there's stuff he wrote that I never noticed and he always makes me think about the movie I saw.

 

And Ebert ripped A Cinderella Story and Raise Your Voice to shreds- so no- he doesn't like Hilary movies. In fact that the Ebert and Roeper segment on RYV where they both mock the movie to no end is hilarious.

 

I don't think Ebert has gone soft. As long as his reviews are still very well written, I won't care what he gives a movie. The guy gave **** to Millions, which I thought was overly sentinemental shit. But I read his review, saw where he was coming from, and thought it was a very well written as usual. I just disagreed with him.

He has gone soft. My local paper in CT uses his reviews for movies and he always seems to give high star ratings.

 

And Lisa must have been smoking crack giving FP an A.

[bob_barron 0]

From Ebert's latest Answer Man column-

 

Those who consult only the stars have only themselves to blame. If stars were all that mattered, why would I go to the trouble of writing a review? Nor need stars be immutable. "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" is now in my Great Movies series, and "The Godfather, Part II" is headed there. That is a de facto upgrading to four stars.

[Mole 0]

WTF?

 

Wow Bob, this must have been bothering you.

[bob_barron 0]

When I read it, it made me instantly remember people going on and on about Ebert giving Godfather II ***- so I figured I'd bump this

[Guest Vitamin X]

Not to start any sort of controversy here, but I feel Ebert was justified in giving Godfather II ***-****. The first one was much better.

[Crimson Platypus 0]

So why bother using stars in the first place if you turn around and tell people to not follow them?

[AmericanDragon 0]

He's probably forced to. Read the actual reviews for a better understanding of what his opinion on the movie is.

[DMann2003 0]

He never likes using them, he should just stop with them. He's the most recognized American film critic, you really think Chicago Sun Times will force him to use star ratings. I mean the NYTimes reviewers never use star of grade ratings, you actually have to read the review to see if they like the film or not, shocking I know.

[bob_barron 0]

He never likes using them, he should just stop with them.  He's the most recognized American film critic, you really think Chicago Sun Times will force him to use star ratings.  I mean the NYTimes reviewers never use star of grade ratings, you actually have to read the review to see if they like the film or not, shocking I know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ebert's told to use star ratings, it's probably just the Sun Times Review policy.