ritera1 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.

TdSmth5 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.

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.

Flow I find it so hard to understand how can House of Bad be rated over 5 and even have positive reviews. This one is one of the most boring films I've ever seen, goes hand in had with Black Rock (2012), another movie with 3 girls, located in an isolated place, and then...something goes terribly wrong.Don't know which one is better to be honest, Black Rock had a little more action but this one delivers on nudity (a lot and quite nice) and some sort of tensioned moments. Sort of! Anyway, it is an independent movie, one that fits perfectly in its category, won't pull its head above, a simple and natural film. It will probably bore you to death, I am sorry to say it, but nothing really happens and when things start to move, they move with such a speed, you'll fall right asleep. If you have only 90 minutes to live, I'd recommend you to watch House of Bad in your final minutes, because one hour with this one seems like an eternity!Had some expectations but it always fails to deliver. Gets a little close from time to time, but just walks right pass it, doesn't even bother to turn its head towards us. I'll recommend you "100 feet", that one is cheesy, but hey, a lot more fun than this one. Was quite the struggle to stay awake.Cheers!