addeisdead A horrible, poorly-done, incredibly stupid movie. To go into everything wrong with this film would take more space than I have here. Don't waste your time. Oh, and as for all those reviews that gush about this movie, they're pretty blatant. One of the reviewers has only reviewed two movies in 11 years. They're both movies directed by Jim Towns. Another one has only reviewed two movies as well. They're both movies starring Sadie Katz. If you guys want to review your own movies, at least have the guts to post your own name so we can see who you really are. Or how about you put out a film that actually deserves praise instead.

gonzo_don Horrible acting, horrible plot, horrible execution. This really makes me wonder what it takes to get a film financed and distributed. From the beginning shots, where the camera was jerking all over the place, to the next shots, where the camera was panning from person to person (only afford one camera, guys?) this was a joke in cinematography. I think the guy who was shooting the hand-held camera scenes had Parkinson's, no kidding. Odd thing is that the story wasn't bad. In a real director's hands with competent actors, it might have been a good flick. Yeah, I know everybody's got to start somewhere, but this definitely was NOT the place for these girls to start.

JoeZilch Bias out front. I know the director and I shot stills for this flick. Having said that I wasn't on set and I didn't read he script or know the story going into watching the film.About 10 minutes in and I figured I knew what would play out and about 30 minutes in I had to change that assessment. By the time the movie ended I found myself glad that I was wrong both times.It wasn't your typical "gotcha" flick that tries to waste your time with swelling music and false starts. Nor was it a simple heist/revenge story. There's more depth and character development than you get in a lot of movies these days.I enjoyed the flick mostly because it was nice to see a truly low budget film, not some multi-million dollar "independent" film, keep my interest until the end. I tend to space out when a movie bores me or is too predicable and neither applies with "House of Bad".Jim Townes did a great job here and I'm glad to have seen it. To explain my "6" rating. That's the "I Liked it" rating. 8 would have been one of my favorites and 10 would be a perfect movie. I only use multiples of 2 for my ratings. I'm not going to blow smoke because I think Jim is a great guy, I liked the film and rated it accordingly.

ihslave Three girls, trapped in a house. Low budget. Predictable...That's all I thought this movie would amount to at five minutes in... but was I ever wrong!House of Bad is a tale of three sisters that steal a load of drugs from a respective boyfriend dealer, and seek to hide out in their childhood home while the heat cools down. They haven't been hiding out long when things start to go awry...What I thought would inevitably break down into a cheap slasher/stalker movie quietly, surprisingly evolved into a well executed practice in good filmmaking. The story involved real characters in believable situations; the dialog was great and well-executed, the use of FX was sparse as to enhance the story, rather than supplant it, and the acting was flat-out good! The budget was low, but the execution was great. There's a very cinematic feel to the picture, and a very good, timely score that doesn't hit you over the head for effect. You get the impression that this film didn't know it was low budget or independent, so it didn't pull any punches in fit and finish. Possibly the best part of House of Bad is the surprising turns the story takes. This film really capitalizes on nuances and the behaviors of the human psyche, and goes places most films don't. Good pacing brings you to a great climax and the little touches of plot that sneak in at the end are haunting. More thriller than horror, better than most, and really satisfying. Well done!