Alicia I love this movie so much

WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Brennan Camacho Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

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.

alshwenbear1 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.

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.