The Perfect House (2013) Reviews

• So off the charts terrible...it's like an interactive insult

  bob_meg2014-03-16

  "I'd go so far as to call The Perfect House one of the most pointless, soulless, ugly, and disgusting horror films of the past ten years...and that's precisely what these filmmakers are after." - Scott Weinberg, FEARnet Mr. Weinberg's comments are so dead-on, I just had to repeat them. I wished I'd read his review before I wasted $5 on this sub-amateurish torture-porn farce that's really only tolerable when it's making fun of itself, which unfortunately isn't often enough. The Perfect House is something like a car wreck: a film so poorly acted, so abominably shot and edited that most times you simply can't believe what you're seeing. It's hard to look away from because you can't imagine any filmmaker would expect this tripe to be taken seriously. And that's just the technical aspect. This is a cobbled-together home-made POS with not one shred of redeeming value as a horror film (or any film). These "filmmakers" are not movie lovers. It's doubtful whether they've even seen a movie or maybe are just incompetent at operating the $200 software package they obviously used to edit with (after they recorded it on their five-year-old Handycam). No, these people are hucksters pure and simple. They know they're pulling one over on you and worse, they want you to know it. Either that, or they are dumber than they obviously assume that you are. Here's a quick run-down of the film's "plot": It's an Anthology film (of course...since all the 'plots' are ludicrously flimsy and clichéd, unable to sustain a full length film certainly) about an "evil" house that drives ordinary people to commit murderous acts (weak attempts at the type of black humor horror done quite well in EC Comics stuff like "Creepshow"). Almost all the segments feature ridiculously hollow, hammy villains who mete out particularly vile tortures for no reason...to many children, no less. I guess they couldn't get away with torturing animals, thank god. There are few good "effects" --- most of the violence is done in cutaway or is blurred or sped-up to mask the VFX guys incompetence or the lack of budget. Speaking of budget, what ghetto did they film this supposed "dream house" in? Yes, TPH is gory, gross, and nauseating. Some of the best horror films are. What they are not, is puerile, shoddily made, and insulting. Sam Raimi's Evil Dead, this is not. It's not even fourth-rate swill like "Don't Look in the Basement" or a camp horror film that's a pleasure because it is so bad (the "Sleepaway Camp" films featuring Felissa Rose, who does scream well here). These guys might be able to daydream about being that good one day, but they'll probably just wind up watching these other films on cable. Just because a film has no money doesn't mean it has to suck. But that requires technique, good camera set-ups, and actors who actually are capable of and want to do a decent job. Oh yes, and a script whose lines aren't complete recycled garbage from bad '60s drive-in fare and actually reflect how people speak, with hints to their characters' motivations and back stories and.... What's the point? If you agree that those things are important, run as fast as you can from this film. It is a dangerous piece of "art" --- simply because making it a success will no doubt egg on other charlatans to follow the money trail with yet another poorly made con job.

  More

• Enough already with the "evil" houses!

  Ringhio82014-03-15

  The perfect house is another movie, of the thousands already, with an "evil" house having his sway on its residents behavior. The kind of movies, labeled as horror, that i believe what i am going to see, i have already seen it before, but i watch them, just for fun and because i want to. And this movie is no exception of the rule. Predictable, bad acting, poor story and nothing original. The acting is so awful, especially when the victims are in danger and threatened to be killed, where no action or reaction comes from them. It has some good gory and torture moments, but nothing you haven't seen before, and it was better than this one of course. All movies, especially horror ones, have many similar scenes and stories, and influence is logic and acceptable. But mixing in a movie, stuff from well known movies, like Hostel, Saw, and Braindead for example, doesn't make it any good or unique. Also there's is a total rip off from Dexter, a really bad one and terribly executed. I am always eager to fresh ideas in a theme that's already been written and seen before too many times, hoping to see something new with a different twist or view, but most of the times, it fails. An evil house, without explanation of its evilness, it's not something people will follow. Except the gory moments, another good thing in the movie, is the sexy Monique Parent, the real estate woman, but a sexy woman, is not enough or the reason for someone to watch a horror movie. A total pass from me, and the creators of each low budget and less promotional horror movies, doesn't have to create different accounts to write propagandic reviews and give high ratings, so they can trick people to watch their films. 2 out of 10.

  More

• First define your reasons for watching this movie..

  rushknight2013-12-08

  Most directors have a goal in mind when they make their movie, and if the movie does what it should in terms of entertainment, then we call that movie a success. Unfortunately for this film, the director makes the mistake of trying to disturb you and terrify you with graphic scenes of torture and gore. Ho hum. It's been done before, and many times even better than this. Disturbing the viewer is a good goal in a horror flick. But extended scenes about torture and gore bore-me-half-to-death. When I can flip forward through entire scenes and be like, "Ok, so long story short, she dies this way, he dies that way, killer does this, killer does that.." and get the entire story without actually needing to watch it, then we have a very shallow idea on the screen indeed. I can literally skip entire scenes and miss nothing, and the rest of the movie still makes perfect sense. In other words, there is no point to this movie except extended scenes of suffering and gore. You may skip them or watch them at your discretion, but why bother watching them when they really add nothing? It's really just more gratuitous than effective, and if you are the sort of person who actually enjoys watching it then I suggest you get your head checked.

  More

• Awful Film and a Waste of time

  seniornibbles2013-05-06

  I had high hopes for this film since it was given to me by a friend and recommended as a must watch, but the video quality, acting and poor directing of this film was to much for me to handle. Now granted I did not watch till the end but after 40 min of mind numbing torture I had to turn this film off. In the age of digital cinema one would expect the use of a high quality camera to shoot, but the grainy unfocused shots lead me to believe this was shot on a lower level camera and not one befitting a feature film. Now I am not sure who is responsible for the directing but by the fact that Co-Director Randy Kent is not attached to the 2nd attempt at a franchise I would guess it was the other director. I would say pass on this film as well as the unwise attempt at a 2nd in the series which looks like as of this review is currently in production. However if you believe that "The Room" is the greatest movie ever shot then this is in fact a must see for you.

  More

• Pretty great film, awesome ending!

  imlionqueen2012-06-24

  I'll be honest, I've been a big Jackass/CKY/Viva La Bam etc. fan forever, and I originally viewed this for Chris Raab. But soon after the story lines started playing out, I was hooked. The acting got a little bit cheesy at times, but overall, to me, the concept and different story lines were great. The three story lines go in chronological order, all taking place in the same house, (that is, in current times, being sold), all in the basement. The first one occurs in 1969, the next in 1986, and the last in 2005. The first storyline is done in a Hitchcock-type, black & white manner. It follows a family of a father, two children (teens), and an awful mother to round it out. Violence is off-screen in this one, but I like the flashbacks and the sort of plot twist (at least for me - I thought something else was going on between father & daughter). The second one is my favorite. It follows a psychotic man who keeps two cages in his basement: one for each victim whom he kills, and one for a girl who he's had locked up for five years, who he claims to be his "audience". I love Jonathan Tiersten and Holly Greene playing off each other, they did awesome, as did the captive male. Some really disturbing stuff in this and awesome gore. This scene had the best acting, in my opinion. Very believable and well done. Now the third, and final, storyline. We get a sneak peek of this way at the beginning as well. A crazy man, who's neighbor needs to give back his weed trimmer, takes that whole family hostage. Some crazy stuff plays out here, including throwing a girl with many stab wounds into a bath full of salt water, and making two young children fight to the death to save their mother. Depressing storyline, but very intriguing. The movie's plot also follows the house being sold in present-time. All potential buyers have been scared away because of the creepy basement... all except one. Enter Chris Raab. Oddly, I didn't mind when I saw him that he didn't have much screen time. The movie interested me overall. Anyway, there's a small dialogue between him and another character, and we see a teaser of the sequel, in which Raab's character, Steve, will undoubtedly play a large part. Awesome! Great setup, really looking forward to the next one. I definitely recommend paying at least the $3 on Facebook that it takes to rent the film on your computer for 3 days. Very, very worth it. I'll be purchasing the DVD.

  More