The trailer for the film I had in mind is available here via Dailymotion. Why am I linking to it? Well, just watch it. It's hilarious, largely due to the fact they have that deep-voice-in-trailers guy doing the narration, probably on his day off.
This is one of Surrender Cinema's more bizarre offerings, in that it appears to have been lost in the circuits of time for a while. I hadn't downloaded any scenes from it before I came to think of it last night, and to be honest, it's very difficult to do so. In the end I had to pay a small amount to download one scene. A very small amount, however. I shouldn't be doing that. Nevertheless...
The film has two titles, which also makes it difficult to look for. The title on screen is The Erotic House of Wax. The title on the box is The Exotic House of Wax. Is this a deliberate attempt at confusion? No, probably not. Does it confuse? Yes. I'm pretty sure, at the very least, it's not House of Wax.
Appearance: The Exotic House of Wax, aka The Erotic House of Wax (1997)
Characters: Romeo & Juliet
Yes, that's right, Romeo and Juliet.
The plot of this film - helpfully explained in the above trailer if you want to be lazy - is that a naïve young girl has inherited her grandfather's house of wax, in which - naturally - the figures come to life and have sex at night. Because that's what happens, apparently. (There's some other stuff about a magic amulet and a high priestess who can't talk, but I'm not really sure that's particularly relevant.) To make it more "interesting," some of these wax figures are real people, like Antony and Cleopatra, and - erm - Romeo and Juliet.
Oh, and by the way, the house of wax isn't deliberately Shakespearean. It's nowhere near as cool as that. I just think they picked a few famous sets of lovers and wrote them into the script.
Right, so Romeo and Juliet - although I didn't realise it was them until the dialogue started (they could have worked a little harder on a balcony scene; I thought they were on a boat or something) - come to life and have sex on a bench...
DAMN YOU! WHY DON'T THEY HAVE SEX ON A BALCONY?! THEY'RE ROMEO AND JULIET, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! USE THE PROP YOU'VE ALREADY GOT!
...while a couple of guys watch. Which is a bit creepy. Not to mention the fact that wax can't move, but I don't think they've really thought this one through properly.
The beginning of this scene is in soft focus and features the pretty standard kissing and undressing that a lot of soft porn scenes have. It's not done particularly well, but it's not particularly bad, either. Both characters have nice enough bodies and it's quite nice that they don't just dive in... but you get cock. And that's really not meant to happen.Seriously. Romeo's cock. Yes, it is cock that would pass the Mull of Kintyre test, but nevertheless, it's soft porn - adhere to the unwritten guidelines, guys! No explicit genitalia! Jeeze. Anyway, Juliet looks at the cock - and so do we since there's no real choice in the matter - and then proceeds to fellate it. Or not. She's actually kissing somewhere which is well above where we now know his penis is. Once again, movie... THINK!
It's kind of okay once the sex starts. Or would be. We get Juliet riding Romeo and making some odd facial
expressions, then some odd sitting missionary, and they're both done pretty well. But they're filmed quite badly, to be honest, with random cuts to bits of scenery which don't really represent the action (including the two guys who are standing about looking gormless) every now and again. The actors aren't particularly trying very hard and it's difficult to get too involved even if you are aware what's going on. The costumes are okay, but the music - synthesised rock guitar - really doesn't fit the piece either. Virgins of Sherwood Forest managed period music, but this does not. And that would have really dramatically improved this.Plus... it's Romeo and Juliet. Has anyone involved in this film actually read the play? They're both far too old to be the characters (although it's soft porn so yeah, they have to be 18 or older, but still), their situation is never really alluded to at all, and they don't even partake in any dialogue! But it's some of the best dialogue, ever. Look:
ROMEO
O, wilt thou leave me so unsatisfied?
JULIET
What satisfaction canst thou have to-night?
ROMEO
The exchange of thy love's faithful vow for mine.
JULIET
I gave thee mine before thou didst request it:
And yet I would it were to give again.
ROMEO
Wouldst thou withdraw it? for what purpose, love?
JULIET
But to be frank, and give it thee again.
And yet I wish but for the thing I have:
My bounty is as boundless as the sea,
My love as deep; the more I give to thee,
The more I have, for both are infinite.
[NURSE calls within]
I hear some noise within; dear love, adieu!
Anon, good nurse! Sweet Montague, be true.
Stay but a little, I will come again.
[Exit, above]
Check that out! Now, will somebody please explain to me why the film didn't just have some of that in it? It's hardly a copyright issue. Bloody lazy, that's what it is.
So, yes. Good idea for a scene, but carried out really poorly. And it's a real shame, because actually I remember it being quite good back when I saw this. But that must have been years and years ago, and my memory's warped it into a weird scenario which it isn't, over time. And hey, I probably wouldn't have watched it if House of Wax hadn't been mentioned last night, to begin with...
...however...
...at least I didn't watch the Antony and Cleopatra scene. Because if they mishandled that, it would have probably caused me to have had some sort of seizure.
No comments:
Post a Comment