DVD Review: Around The Block

Around The Block tells the story of a teacher helping to inspire a group of students that others have perhaps given up on. What sets it apart from the many other films with a similar set-up is that it takes place in the Redfern district of Sydney at the time of the 2004 riots, and focuses on the Aboriginal students. What also makes it interesting is its use of Hamlet in the telling of the tale.

There is some awkward voice over at the beginning while Dino Chalmers (Christina Ricci) films some teenagers dancing in the streets: “We do not choose to be born, but can we choose to be free? Is anyone really free?” Fortunately, that sort of clunky, juvenile narration is only used at the beginning and the very end.

The film focuses on two characters – Dino and Liam (Hunter Page-Lochard), the boy she was filming. Their very different lives are set up clearly at the beginning, as the film follows each of them home. The camera is hand-held as it follows Liam through his home, and the colors are sort of darker yellows. In contrast, the camera work is much smoother and less hurried when Dino arrives at her own home. And there is much more light as well (which might seem happier, but is also less interesting, paler – and that is telling too), as she shows her fiancé the footage she shot.

Their two very different worlds meet when Dino gets a job teaching English and drama at the school Liam attends, a school that is likely to close before the end of the year. She sees Liam outside her classroom, recognizes him from her footage, and learns he’s supposed to be in her class. She hands him a copy of Hamlet to entice him to attend.

Meanwhile, Liam’s father is in prison, his uncle killed, and his brother vowing revenge. Liam feels an obligation to his family, but wants to follow his own path. What creates a stronger connection between the two worlds is the play Hamlet, which Dino is teaching her drama students. The elements of revenge and family obligations and uncertainty all play into Liam’s situation. Also, the uncle that was killed had been an actor and had played Horatio and had always wanted to play Hamlet. So Liam’s involvement in the play works as a way to connect both to an earlier time in his childhood and to a family member who is gone, as well as a way to break free from the paths of his father and older brother.

Hamlet is arguably the greatest artistic achievement of the human race, and so it’s always interesting to see what inspiration a film will draw from it, and how it will use it. Around The Block makes excellent use of the themes of the play, and of course scenes drawn straight from it, as we see auditions, rehearsals and so on. For fans of the play, one thing I found odd is that in Liam’s callback and in the actual production at the end, he drops the “Ay, there’s the rub” line from the “To be or not to be” speech. But that line is what connects the previous thought to his next thought. I am curious why the screenwriter chose to cut that line.

There are some excellent performances in this film, especially that of Hunter Page-Lochard, who plays Liam. Also impressive is Ursula Yovich as Liam’s mother.

Special Features

The DVD has several special features, including a commentary track by writer/director Sarah Spillane and production designer Michael Fitzgerald. Sarah Spillane gives a bit of background on the Block, which is interesting.

There is also Around The Block: Behind The Scenes, an eighteen-minute featurette with footage of the production and interviews with director Sarah Spillane, producer Brian Rosen, producer Su Armstrong, editor Veronika Jenet, cinematographer Martin McGrath, composer Nick Wales, and cast members Christina Ricci, Hunter Page-Lochard, Jack Thompson, Ursula Yovich, Mark Coles Smith, Ruby Rose. Sarah Spillane and Hunter Page-Lochard talk a bit about Hamlet. Spillane also talks about the budget and schedule.

The special features also include four deleted scenes, a music video and the theatrical trailer.

Around The Block was written and directed by Sarah Spillane, and was released on DVD on August 5, 2014.

Film Review: Anna

Anna is a thriller about a man who can access others’ memories, and is assigned what at first seems a simple case but which of course turns out to be much more complex and even dangerous.

The film has an interesting opening scene. It at first feels like a routine break-in scene, with the woman startled by a noise in her home, and then relaxing when she thinks she’s safe, while we see the intruder behind her. But suddenly there is an odd detail. She walks right by a man without seeing him, and then is attacked by another man, while the first watches. She locks herself in the bathroom where the tub is overflowing. That first man is in there watching, but then is suddenly downstairs as the water runs down toward him. The focus has switched from the woman to this man, which is a nice surprise. He rushes upstairs to pull another woman out of the tub, and then he and the first woman suddenly come to in a laboratory, where Sebastian (Brian Cox) informs us, “John’s own memories are intruding.”

We learn, through a television news scene, about Mindscape, “The world’s top memory detective agency.” The news story is about a senator who is the target of an investigation involving embezzlement and blackmail, but the reporter then goes into detail of the history of the use of psychic ability in the solving of crimes and so forth. As is often the case with news footage scenes in films, it’s not quite believable. The newscaster would give just a brief account of the embezzlement case regarding the senator, but wouldn’t be likely to give a history lesson. This is just exposition for the film audience, and that’s exactly what it feels like. The exposition is handled in a rather clunky manner in this film.

We learn that John Washington (Mark Strong), the man from the opening scene, has returned to work several months after suffering from a mild stroke and is in need of money. We also learn that it’s been two years since his wife’s death, and that he hasn’t been dating in this time. Sebastian assigns him the case of Anna, a teenager on a hunger strike. His job is simply to get her to start eating. John quips, “Just tell her parents to hide the fashion magazines.”

But once we get past the exposition, the film becomes quite compelling. Anna’s home is a mansion, with a gate and security cameras. The shot of the gate closing behind John immediately gives us the sense of his own imprisonment, that he is now trapped in whatever lies ahead. We’re introduced to Anna’s mother, Michelle (Saskia Reeves), and stepfather, Robert (Richard Dillane), who tell John (and us) that Anna was always unusual. Michelle calls her “gifted,” while Robert calls her “haunted.” We learn that Anna wishes to go back to school, but is being kept at home because she has cut herself. She is also under constant surveillance within the house, that two people – Judith and Ralph – monitor the cameras from a special room. All of this is an intriguing set-up.

And the film creates some interesting characters, particularly John and Anna. When we meet Anna (Taissa Farmiga), she displays some psychic ability herself, guessing what John is going to say just as he says it. What is odder is that she finds the sound of a metronome soothing. John asks her some questions, leading her to say my favorite line of the film: “I’m not a sociopath, just smart enough to think like one.”

John gets down to business, telling her a bit about how the memory viewing works, including an explanation for why that woman walked right by him in the opening scene. Anna’s memories immediately show her stepfather in a poor light, which begs the question, Why did he hire a memory detective? John is able to get her to eat a sandwich in their first session. And though he had told Sebastian he wasn’t ready to date, he immediately goes on a date with Judith. But if things seem a bit easy for John, it soon becomes clear that there is much more going on with this girl, and that there is something odd about her memories. Was she abused? Did she harm others? And though he’s a memory investigator, he very quickly becomes a real investigator, talking to people who claim Anna ruined their lives.

I got really caught up and involved in this film, but was disappointed with the ending. I can’t detail the problems without giving things away. So let me just say there are some problems with the logic. Basically, everything one character does is with a certain goal in mind. But at the end this character does something which completely negates all that had been done before. Plus, there are some believability issues with the ending, as John becomes something of a moron, and as evidence is completely overlooked by the authorities. And ultimately the film doesn’t have as much to say about memories as I would have hoped. But the characters and set-up are really interesting, and the performances are quite good.

Anna was directed by Jorge Dorado, and was released on DVD on August 5, 2014.

DVD Review: The Last Match

The Last Match is an excellent film about two young, poor men in Havana who are friends and become closer. It opens with two men in a car. One is talking, but the camera remains on the other, who is looking out the window, clearly not listening, and not even responding when the first asks if he’s listening. This is our introduction to Yosvani (Milton Garcia). He shows his first bit of genuine interest when upon arriving home his girlfriend Gema gives him a pair of sneakers, telling him, "Happy birthday." Soon he joins some friends for a neighborhood soccer game. They immediately notice his new shoes. That night he’s jumped, and his shoes are stolen. It shows how tenuous is his hold on anything good or valuable in this world of heat and poverty.

Yosvani’s closest friend and teammate is Reinier (Reinier Diaz), whose poverty is immediately apparent as he looks for food in his apartment, and a woman’s demands of “Where is my radio” go unanswered. It’s clear he’s had to sell it. (Later we see him purchase the radio back, getting it out of hock, showing he had to sell it out of necessity and not out of any sort of selfishness or unkindness.) He has a wife and child to support, and does so by meeting men at a pick-up spot.

Interestingly, the first time we see him at that spot, he meets a man from Barcelona and they talk a bit about soccer, which immediately has Reinier opening up to him. It’s not the typical pick-up scene. But later when Juan, the man from Barcelona, attempts to take things to their logical conclusion, Reinier stops him, saying, “I’m not a fag.” What is also interesting is that his wife and Teresa (his wife’s grandmother) are well aware of how Reinier makes money, and Teresa is even encouraging.

I love the realistic feel of this film, the way the camera follows its subjects, almost as if letting their movements determine the shots. It gives a small sense of freedom to the characters, while at the same time they feel quite contained within this world.  This film creates a very believable environment. You can almost feel the heat of the place. Part of that is due to the excellent performances of the entire cast.

Reinier and Yosvani meet at a club, and Yosvani neglects to introduce Gema, so she’s forced to do it herself. It’s quick and subtle, but telling. The courtship between Reinier and Yosvani begins awkwardly, as alcohol and pills strip away inhibitions (pills supplied by Gema), but it’s not long before drugs are not needed. And I love the scene where Reinier and Yosvani first become intimate. The camera stays close on Yosvani, on his face, but from just over his shoulder, and we see Reinier’s hand touching the back of his head. It’s so intimate and honest, and immediate. And the smile Yosvani finally gives is beautiful.

What I love is that after that, we see them with their women, and it’s clear they love them. That scene isn’t really awkward, but is sweet and loving, with the four of them together at the beach, and at an amusement park. This isn’t one of those films where there’s some sudden realization and then everything changes. It’s more like this added element is incorporated into the whole.

Things also feel like they move at the right pace. There is nothing rushed here, but there is most certainly an increasing tension and the feeling that something is going to go wrong. This film creates very interesting and well fleshed out relationships, including that between Reinier and Juan. And it is within these relationships that the film is often surprising. I really wasn’t sure how things would turn out for anyone.

By the way, there is one weird shot where someone outside is sneaking around with a camera. It’s brief, but unmistakable. Is it paparazzi? I’m curious.

The Last Match was directed by Antonio Hens, and was released on DVD on July 7, 2014 through Canteen Outlaws and TLA Releasing. The DVD includes the film’s trailer.

DVD Review: Dream Deceivers

Dream Deceivers is a truly interesting and at times unsettling documentary about the two young men who entered a suicide pact, and the resulting lawsuit against the rock band Judas Priest. It was released in 1992, but is now finally getting a DVD release, thanks to First Run Features.

The film opens with the 9-1-1 call about the shooting and footage of the scene. A title card gives us a bit of information on the images: “Just before Christmas 1985 James Vance and Ray Belknap shot themselves with a 12-gauge shotgun. Their families blamed heavy-metal band Judas Priest, claiming a recorded subliminal command – “Do it” – had mesmerized their sons.” The documentary focuses on the trial which took place in 1990, and on the families of the two men (Ray Belknap died, while James Vance survived the suicide attempt). There are interviews with members of both families, as well as interviews with members of Judas Priest. And what comes across is a really sad story, a depressing environment and quite a lot of denial.

Through this film, we especially get to know the Vance family. We’re introduced to Phyllis Vance in church, with the congregation singing a lively Jesus song. It’s an interesting introduction, because right away we get a sense of the religious perspective from which she is coming to this case. But it's also interesting because of the music, the fact that she clearly enjoys music as well as her, though a different type of music. Phyllis says of her son James, “I don’t know when I lost him.” And that’s when we’re introduced to James himself, whose face was left seriously disfigured by the attempted suicide. The footage of him is unsettling. Perhaps even more unsettling is the footage of him at home, where his mother talks about how there are lots of things he can no longer eat because he doesn’t have enough teeth.

At the beginning of the court case, the judge says: “Just to make sure that we’re together, there is nothing in the music, in the sound effects, or the lyrics that is actionable…What is on trial is whether there are subliminal messages present, and if so if they have an effect upon the listener.” It’s obviously an important trial regarding freedom of expression, but through this trial, we also really a get a disturbing look at the troubles that many teens suffer.

One of the most interesting moments from the trial footage is when the song “Better By You Better Than Me” is played slowly. It does actually sound like it might possibly say “Do it.” What’s great is the band’s reaction – clearly they hadn’t heard it before. Rob Halford actually sings the song on the stand. There are interviews with Judas Priest members Glenn Tipton, Rob Halford and K.K. Downing. Halford talks about how the band tackles subjects other than love in their music, and relates some childhood memories of walking by an iron works factory.

There are also interviews with several fans of the band, who talk rather candidly as a group about their own lives. And it seems to me that when James Vance talks about the music, he is still very much a fan.

What I find most interesting is the perspectives and reactions of the families. Mrs. Vance excuses her husband’s drinking problem, his gambling problem, and his earlier abuse toward her, and somehow fixes on Judas Priest as being the reason for her son’s attempted suicide. The footage of Mr. and Mrs. Vance ag home arguing is incredible. Mrs. Vance gets upset because she feels everyone blames her for everything. And in court both mothers are forced to talk about the trouble their sons got into early on in their lives. But perhaps the moment that hits hardest is when Rita Skulason, Ray’s sister, takes the stand, and is asked if she listened to heavy metal music on either of the two occasions when she herself attempted suicide. She admits, “No.”

It’s a really good documentary, though I would have liked more on just what the prosecution hoped to prove. Perhaps a little more trial footage, and some interviews with the prosecuting attorneys would have added greatly to this film. By the way, the title of the documentary comes from the title of  a Judas Priest song.

Special Features

The DVD contains approximately twenty-five minutes of footage from two interviews with director David Van Taylor – one conducted in 1992, the other in 2011. He talks about meeting the families and his approach to dealing with them. In the 1992 interview, he talks about his changing feelings on the issues, and why it was important to include footage of James. He also mentions screening the film for the Vance family. In the 2011 interview he talks about the powerlessness of the people in the film, both the kids and their parents, and about his own reactions upon seeing the movie now. In both interviews he talks about the band.

Dream Deceivers was directed by David Van Taylor, and is scheduled to be released on DVD on August 5, 2014 through First Run Features.

DVD Review: Eroddity(s)

Eroddity(s) is an anthology of gay-themed short films written and directed by Steven Vasquez. It opens with a fake dictionary entry for the word eroddity, and there are already a few problems. It is identified as a noun, but the first definition is “of, tending to arouse sexual desire.” That’s the definition of an adjective, not a noun. And then the third definition is “(s) plural, consisting of, containing more then one.” I’m sure the filmmaker meant “more than one,” and I have to wonder why no one proofread the opening of the film. Also, that definition doesn’t really apply. Basically, he’s defining the word plural there, not the word errodity (or erroditys – and wouldn’t it be errodities anyway?) Not an auspicious beginning.

The first story, “Forever Mine,” opens with a gay couple watching a porn. “I put in your favorite movie for you,” one of them says, and it’s said without humor. “Let’s just get this over with,” the second guy says, leaning in to kiss the first. The film then goes back to an earlier moment in their relationship, with the two walking through a park, and one of them peeing. Then they’re back in bed, and the peeing one says, “You’re all I have.” He repeats it, and then the camera pans over to reveal that the other guy is now a skeleton. We go back to the peeing shot because certainly that’s a shot worth showing twice. And since they’re showing it a second time, let me mention this: The guy has pulled his pants halfway down his thighs. Does any guy do that to pee? The non-peeing guy then says, “Dude, I’m your brother.” Dramatic music plays, and we’re back in their house and the peeing guy pulls a gun out of a drawer and shoots the other one. And that’s that. It’s kind of hilarious, in an unintended and sad way.

The dead one then addresses the camera directly: “I have a bone to pick with my little brother.” This is the first line that seems intended to be funny, but of course is not. He continues: “Hi, I’m Corey Tyndall. And welcome to Eroddity(s).” In voice over, he continues: “You have entered a realm where teenage boys make new discoveries behind locked bedroom doors. We take you behind these doors and offer you a voyeuristic window into the world of the young and the inexperienced.” And for those who are curious, yes, there is a lot of male nudity in the film. The film is just this side of porn, but the performances and the music aren’t quite up to that level.

When the next story, “A Mind Of Their Own,” begins, it has its own opening credits sequence, which seems unnecessary. Aaron is an annoying guy who narrates this story. “I decided to do a little investigation,” he says as we see him doing a little investigation on screen. Note to filmmakers: Don’t have a narrator tell us what we’re already seeing. He finds a cassette tape and a note. So he goes to Orange County and meets some other guy who can’t act. It’s painful listening to them talk, partly because this is the worst dialogue in the history of film (and yes, I’m including porn) and partly because these two have no acting talent whatsoever. We then have a flashback to Aaron with a girl who has slightly less talent than the others. Shocking. Anyway, there is some silliness about a magic tape recorder that creates male lovers. The truly magical thing here is that someone was able to find a tape recorder.

Clearly, writer/director Steven Vasquez loves to see his own name on screen, because at the beginning of the next story, “Unsolved Christmas,” he has once again given himself writing and directing credits. Since he wrote and directed the entire film, it seems one credit at the beginning would have sufficed. Anyway, this one too features narration, and the narration is done as a Christmas poem. Zach’s parents overhear a phone conversation, thus learning of his sexual orientation. They want to make him straight, and so they buy him a camera. There are actually some really cute moments when the narrator makes suggestions for use of the camera. And of course he uses the camera to photograph a boy he has a crush on.

“The Way To A Man’s Heart” (and hey, look, more credits for Steven Vasquez!) opens with a guy going to another guy’s grave, saying he’s sorry and that he misses him. At a bar, he then meets Kevin, and the two talk about how Thomas died a year ago. At home, the guy’s girlfriend shows up with a bottle of wine to celebrate the anniversary. The guy asks, “Is it really something we should be celebrating?” And the girl says, “Us being together for a year and a half.” Okay, someone needs to tell this girl the definition of anniversary. Apparently they buried Thomas in a cardboard box in someone else’s grave, as we learn through some dialogue in between sex scenes. Thomas returns from his grave (well, someone else’s grave) to seek revenge, his plan including a lot of cooking.

At the end of the film, the host threatens us, “Until next time.” No!

Eroddity(s) was written and directed by Steven Vasquez (I figured he’d want me to mention that one more time), and was released on DVD on July 15, 2014 through TLA Releasing. The DVD includes the film’s trailer.

DVD Review: What’s In A Name?

What’s In A Name? is a wonderful and surprising film about several friends who get together for dinner, and end up learning a lot about each other and themselves after one of them reveals the name he and his wife have chosen for their son.

The film begins, however, with a man named Jean-Jacques on a motorcycle. The opening narration tells us that “Jean-Jacques is lucky. He isn’t superstitious.” The narrator tells us of the deaths of the French writers for whom are named the streets by which Jean-Jacques must travel. It’s hilarious, intercut with illustrations of those people. It’s delightful in sort of the same way much of Wes Anderson’s work is delightful. I was reminded of The Royal Tenenbaums, particularly.

Jean-Jacques is delivering some pizzas, but knocks on the wrong door. And that’s how we’re introduced to Pierre and Elisabeth. The narrator tells us that Elisabeth Garaud-Larchet (Valerie Benguigui) is a middle school French teacher who directs the school plays. Her husband, Pierre (Charles Berling), is a literature professor. “Corduroy is like his second skin.” When Elisabeth’s mother, Francoise, calls, the voice over tells us a bit about her also: “She has a beautiful alto voice, but she’s a bit talkative.” Claude (Guillaume De Tonquedec) arrives, and we’re told that he is a Libra, and also Libra rising, and that he and Elisabeth have been friends since childhood. And when Vincent (Patrick Bruel) arrives, we learn that he’s Elisabeth’s brother, Pierre’s best friend, and Claude’s childhood friend. A real estate agent, he’s “Merciless but extremely courteous.” He met Anna when they almost collided in their cars. “And soon Anna will be expecting Vincent’s child.”

I know that many people are of the opinion that voice over should not be used in films. And while there is a lot of awful and pointless voice over in movies, it also can be used extremely well. It might seem like an easy way to get across a lot of information about characters, but in this film it’s done in such a creative and humorous way that it’s totally enjoyable. And so when the film gets underway, we do already have a good idea about who these people are. We already like them.

The odd thing, however, is that the first ten or fifteen minutes end up feeling like a different film. All the narration, the quick pace, and the many shots and cutaways in those opening minutes are fun, but once the film gets going, all of that is dispensed with. The film becomes more of a comedic drama, taking place in a single location. So while I enjoy tremendously both the beginning and the bulk of this film, I’m not sure the two quite work together.

The relationships, however, are all quite clear, with conversation flowing naturally and lightly until Elisabeth asks Vincent about Anna’s ultrasound. Vincent looks glum and says, “The good news is it’s a boy, the bad news is he’s dead.” They recoil in shock, and he admits: “I’m putting you on. He’s fine.” I appreciate Vincent’s screwed up sense of humor, and it’s great that it’s established right away.

A little later, the others take turns guessing the name Vincent and Anna have chosen for their child. Vincent gives the hint that it starts with “A,” which immediately has me guessing. Turns out I guessed correctly, sort of.  Vincent says they’re naming their child after the title character in Benjamin Constant’s novel, and this leads to a heated discussion, with all making good points. And when Anna (Judith El Zein) arrives, the conversation regarding the name resumes, much to Vincent’s surprise and delight. But soon other personal issues are brought to the surface. It’s great that the film first took the time to establish that these are people who love each other, for otherwise we might not care as much.

The ending is a little weak, but otherwise this is a completely enjoyable film.

What’s In A Name? was directed by Matthieu Delaporte and Alexandre de La Patelliere, and was released on DVD on June 3, 2014 through First Run Features. The DVD contains no special features. The original French title, by the way, is Le Prénom.

DVD Review: The Perfect House

The Perfect House is a horror anthology, with several stories that all take place at various times in one house. It opens with a close-up shot of a closed door. The door opens, and a family comes out, the father telling the daughter, “Get off the phone.” They walk next door to Mr. Sullivan’s house for dinner, and it’s a quiet, creepy scene. Mr. Sullivan is hung up on getting his weed whacker back. When the father admits he tossed it, the screen goes black. It’s a good, sufficiently unsettling opening, which also has just the right amount of humor (and the right kind of humor).

We then go to a young married couple, Marisol and Mike, who are looking to buy their first house. It’s a sunny day on a suburban street, in contrast to dark events of the film, and Marisol is determined to get this house. It’s revealed in the dialogue that the price has dropped enough that it’s come into their price range. And when they arrive at the house, Mike comments that the house next door is for sale too.

The real estate agent (Monique Parent) is delightfully quirky. She says, “You two are just the cutest couple,” which you might expect any real estate agent to say. But she follows it with “I just want to jump right in the sack with the both of you,” which you probably wouldn’t expect a real estate agent to say. (She’s a hot redhead, so I wouldn’t be opposed were I in Mike’s position.) When she indicates that all the furniture is include, Marisol whispers to Mike, “If we buy this place, all this stuff goes.” It’s interesting that Marisol has already gone from definitely wanting the house, to using the word “if.” It’s subtle, but shows that she already, perhaps subconsciously, knows that something is wrong. Mike immediately finds a red stain on a chair, which stretches believability a bit. The real estate agent flirts some more in the bedroom. Mike’s reactions and facial expressions are a bit much; there is nothing subtle about his performance here.

As they go into the basement, we have a flashback to earlier tenants down there during a big storm, and this is essentially the first of three short stories that all take place in the house, and particularly in the basement. (And there are flashbacks within the flashback.) We return to Marisol and Mike briefly before going into the next story.

The second story is about a man who keeps a woman in a cage in the basement. She acts as his muse, his audience (he calls her his partner), as he tortures and murders people. There’s a nice moment where the psycho has set up a television so the new torture victim can watch some of his earlier work. What I love is the shot of the girl (Holly Greene) looking over at the screen. She’s eating, and she looks over at the television like she’s watching some regular program during dinner. It’s a wonderfully casual, slightly interested look. She then comments on it, which takes away a bit from the moment, but is still interesting. I also like that we don’t see what’s on the screen, only the guy’s reaction. And while we don’t see the horror on the screen, there are certainly some gruesome shots in this story.

The third story is the family from the opening scene. And there are some more gruesome shots and some screwed up scenes that should appeal to horror fans.

This is a good independent, low-budget horror film. Sure, there is some uneven acting throughout the film, especially in the final scene. And I have to wonder why all the opening credits are replayed at the end of the film (perhaps simply to extend the length of the movie). But there is plenty of good stuff to appeal to horror fans. It’s interesting, because it doesn’t seem like the house turns good people bad. It’s that awful people are attracted to this house. The house wants a certain type of person to inhabit it. And that makes me wonder what the real estate agent’s connection is to it. I wanted a little more with her, something revealing her relation to it, besides that simply of her job. They’ve created an interesting character here whose tie to the house is different from that of other characters, so it seems she could have been used to better effect.

Special Features

The DVD has a lot of bonus material. Unfortunately, much of it is pointless and poorly shot.

Q&A Highlight Reel is footage from Q&A sessions after screenings of the film. This feature is approximately 103 minutes. The first Q&A is from Denver, and the sound isn’t that good, and because the panel was in the dark, we see other footage during it, which is really odd. The second, in Aurora, has a bit more light, but we still are shown other footage. They talk about two sequels they want to do. The third is from Elmira, New York. The fourth is in New Brunswick, New Jersey. The fifth is in Philadelphia, and suddenly the sound is much better for this Q&A. They talk about reshooting the ending of the film. The next is in Orlando, Florida, and this one is well lit. That one is really short. From there, they go to Buffalo, New York.

The bonus material includes the original ending, which is without a final audio mix. There is also some behind-the-scenes footage, with brief interviews with crew members and with cast members Monique Parent, Chris Raab and John Philbin.

Creation Of The Perfect House RV is four minutes of footage of an RV that they bought and fixed for their promotional tour. This and On The Road, which is footage of a meeting regarding promotion of the film and footage of guys on their laptops, are pointless and not at all interesting.

Buffalo: Countdown To Facebook Premiere is footage of the cast and crew gathering to watch the film in celebration of its premiere on Facebook, applauding each other, and then someone asking the actors if they liked the film. It’s basically a lot of jerking off, which is only interesting to those involved and possibly their closest family members. Buffalo: TV Press begins with video of crew members talking about getting sleep and doing laundry and catching up on emails and so on (who cares?), but then it becomes interesting when it turns to footage from a local television program where Andrea Vahl and Kris Hulbert appeared as guests.

Basement Walkthrough is pre-production video footage of the basement location.

There are four trailers for the film. In addition to the regular film trailer, there is a one-minute teaser trailer, an “audience trailer” (which includes feedback from audience members and quotes from reviews), and the original spec trailer. It’s interesting to see from the spec trailer which things they changed when they shot the film, and which they kept the same.

The Perfect House was directed by Kris Hulbert and Randy Kent, and is scheduled to be released on DVD on July 22, 2014 through Wild Eye Releasing.