House of Bad (2013) User Reviews

Pure and perfect BOREDOM.

[Patient444 · 3/10 · 4 December 2013]

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!

Trust me; it is a major waste of time!

[alshwenbear1 · 3/10 · 6 December 2013]

To begin with:

Heather L. Tyler: horrible, terrible acting! Hopefully I'll never see her in another movie again, unless, she pays for good acting lessons and comes back in a better movie and role, that gets her an Oscar or something acceptable.

Sadie Katz: amazingly fit and hot and a great job in such a terrible movie, so out of five on her acting I'll say is a four. Looking forward to see her again!

Cheryl Sands: good acting and potential future in the movie business.

Directors and writers, epic failure as director; writing it has to be less boring, remember is for a movie not for reading while commuting to work.

I really wanted to like this House of Mad, bad, boredom or whatever the title! This movie should have been 30 minutes shorter, I assure you even with all the screaming is a "doze off" sorry, I would recommend it to someone I dislike very much in order to ruin their evening!

By the way is time for fake reviews or people who don't know anything about movies to stay away from The Internet Movie Data Base.

Horrible

[addeisdead · 2/10 · 5 December 2014]

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.

Pathetic

[dongillette1 · 1/10 · 12 June 2014]

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.

The title actually says it all...

[paul_haakonsen · 3/10 · 13 July 2014]

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.

There's something very tragic about low-budget film

[ritera1 · 3/10 · 25 September 2015]

This is no exception. Shows the interdependency of time, money and talent in movies. Sure, some indie stuff is better than high-budget fare. Not frequently.

But this wouldn't 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. Sure is an expensive hobby. There's truth in "practice makes perfect" but this was a costly practice session. If you're going to play the game, make an effort 'cause it only hurts you in the future.

I think there"s 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's 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.

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.

Stick to the plan

[nogodnomasters · 4/10 · 6 October 2018]

Three sisters decide to steal some drugs, sell them, and escape from their mistake filled lives. Sirah (Sadie Katz) is a stripper/prostitute. She actually steals the drugs from her boyfriend (Clint Jung). Teig (Heather L. Tyler) has two strikes. She is the brains of the operation. Fawn looking Lily (Cheryl Sands) is the younger half sister. She has a different mother and a drug problem.

The three girls hold up in the two older sister's childhood home, one that is filled with bad memories of an abusive father and a mother who died in the house. All three girls feel and see ghosts. At 48 minutes into the film the "incident" is explained.

This is a fairly well acted film, although as a scary ghost story it could of had some build up. For the guys there is plenty of eye candy scenes.

F-bomb, sex, nudity (Heather L. Tyler, Sadie Katz, and Cheryl Sands- thank you Cheryl)

'Bad' is the operative word.

[RatedVforVinny · 4/10 · 24 February 2020]

Well actually it's not all bad but this three girl, sister thriller is not too great either. Has a three out of ten rating here on IMDb, so will go just one notch higher. The acting and characters are certainly lively but it falls short on many fronts, including plot, script and any type of real gripping action. Just about watchable to the final, unsatisfying conclusion.

Last Of It Seemed to Drag......

[wandernn1-81-683274 · 5/10 · 31 May 2020]

+1 Star for some dialogue near the beginning that cracked me up

+1 Star for following the rule, don't have a shower scene without nudity

-1 Star for Gutshot woman turning into Olympic athelete...

-1 Star for the believability of the whole story and the 'ghost' crap or whatever was going on wasn't really necessary for the story at all

All in all there were some good parts. The 2nd half of the movie really bogged down a LOT turning it into just nothing special

Independent cinema. Done right.

[vis666 · 9/10 · 17 January 2013]

Sure, you could go and spend x amount of your hard-earned dollars to go and see the most recent blockbuster playing in an overcrowded theater near you. That's your every right. But have you ever considered some of those lesser known names? Some that aren't on the Hollywood A-list? You know, one of those movies you come across on Netflix but won't watch because you don't know who made it/stars in it? You might be surprised what is out there. To which proves this little film. Shot in a mere 8 days with a budget which is a fraction of a typical blockbuster, House of Bad focuses on three siblings returning to their elderly home after one of the sisters steals a large suitcase filled with heroin from her boyfriend. Little do they know, the house that was once their childhood home, is now confronting the girls with a cruel past.

With a few eerie scenes, underlined by a great soundtrack (courtesy of Terry Huud) and several great suspense moments you could easily classify this as a thriller/mild horror. Yet the film has more to offer. The characters are well explained, with the family history as a central plot to the movie, you can find yourself caring for the characters. Director/co-writer Jim Towns clearly did a great job making this, especially considering the ridiculous small amount of time and money that was put into this.

If you get a chance to watch this, go for it. It's a great 1.36h ride.

4/5. Independent cinema. Done right.

A new wrinkle to the genre...

[ihslave · 7/10 · 17 March 2013]

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!

Surprisingly good

[TdSmth5 · 8/10 · 6 December 2014]

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.