Really Surprised!

It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

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.

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.

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.

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.