Must See Movie...

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

This is no exception. It shows the interdependency of time, money and talent in movies. Sure, some indie stuff is better than high-budget fare. Not frequently.But this would not have survived even the best of intentions. There is something noble about getting something like this made. Money achieved, script written, people assemble---and then? Nothing. It sure is an expensive hobby. There's truth in practice makes perfect but this was a costly practice session. But if you're going to play the game, make an effort 'cause it only hurts you in the future.I think there is a need for some to make the indie field more than it is. Probably the crowd who resents "movies" vs. "film". A way to stand up to what people believe is a vocation that is cheapened. But filmmaking is not a field that bodes well for people who want to satisfy their creative needs. It's f'ing expensive. Not like writing that novel on your off time.It is also a visual medium, which does not work well in the indie world. When you get down to talking heads and stage blood, then you have a play. You want to emphasize story and character, then you have to actually have those played by actual actors.And how does this and other "films" compete in the world of Star Wars, Transformers and Mission Impossible? It's the same price at the theater and in the Red Box. After that you're just providing filler for shut-ins who ran out of the blockbusters.Although the video format has opened up the field and made it very cost effective, you have to try and make that look interesting. Not here. Granted it probably suffered from time constraints as it was filmed in eight days. But I would doubt much preparation was done both in cinematography or rehearsal. Although very attractive, the actors were very stiff and dull. I would attribute that also to direction, which was clunky at best. And there was no story to speak of. Plenty of naked characters but no character development. What was it about, really?Horror movie? No. Why you would choose to have your horror elements occur during the day? The writer/director seems to be prolific in his career. Good for him. But I would be hard pressed to see another of his movies based on this one.

A girl is sleeping with a guy. When he falls asleep she grabs a suitcase and leaves. She meets up with two other girls and they drive to a house. The house is familiar to them. Teig who is the girl in charge collects their cell phones and announces that they will stay there for two weeks until no one is looking for them anymore. Little by little we learn what is going on.Teig and Sirah are sisters. Lily is their half sister. Teig was imprisoned, Sirah is a stripper and Lily is a junkie. By stealing the case full of drugs they hope to make a new life for themselves in Mexico. The house is their childhood home. As Teig gets more abusive Lily can't resist the temptation of a case full of drugs and Sirah in secret sends a text message to someone.But there's something else going on. The girls start having visions and seeing things that occurred in the past. When Teig and Sirah were little, their mom was pregnant. At some point she admitted to her husband that the kid was someone else's. Meanwhile he was cheating on her with another woman. The husband lost it. When things went wrong with her pregnancy he offered no help. And for some reason he ended up locking little Teig in the basement. Now all that pain and suffering is coming back to haunt the girls.House of Bad is a B action/horror thriller. It features excellent and confident direction and very good acting by the sexy girls. There's a bit of violence and nudity. The story is interesting because it combines the business of stealing the drugs and hiding with a bit of the supernatural. It does get somewhat boring as usually happens with psychological horror, especially when you confine people in a room or house for most of the movie. And the occasional shaky/floating camera-work gives this movie a cheaper look than it deserves because otherwise the movie looks good and bright. Fortunately it stays away from night and rain and the usual gimmicks for the most part. House of Bad is a success for a low budget movie.

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.

I had no expectation to this movie and hadn't even checked out the rating or the reviews on IMDb, so little did I know what kind of snooze-fest I were in for here."House of Bad", well it would be more appropriate with "House of Boredom". Why? Well, because it was a slow paced horror movie that didn't really accomplish much of anything. The attempts to build up suspense didn't work, as there was little to be frightened by throughout the entire movie, unless you consider the lack of a proper story scary.The movie just trotted along at a fairly slow pace, with no ups and downs as horror movies usually do, tending to be a roller-coaster of thrills, screams and scares. The movie was essentially just three women sitting around in a house, where they saw the "ghosts" of their past coming to haunt them.It might actually have worked if the women actually were believing in it themselves. But they didn't, and that lack of commitment and enthusiasm clearly cast a long shadow over the entire movie, making it a less than adequate or enjoyable experience.I actually gave up just 15 minutes from the ending, as I really didn't need to see how this mundane movie ended, and if it kept up with the rest of the movie, I assume that I wasn't missing out on a grand surprise or twist of the plot."House of Bad" wasn't really my kind of movie, but I am sure that there is an audience out there for it somewhere. I prefer to be more entertained and have an occasional scare here and there, or at the very least have a dark atmosphere to carry the movie.A mere, but generous, 3 stars out of 10 for this movie from me.