Incannerax What a waste of my time!!!

GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

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

Nigel P I have to admit to being somewhat misled by this film's title; I expected a slasher flick, or something a lot more gory than what is delivered here. But it's a very gladsome misdirection. This is a compelling, slow-burning low-budget project often shot in uneasy, unsteady close-ups. The cast are uniformly excellent. Amy Seimetz is terrific as Sarah, a hesitant, awkward ex-alcoholic. AJ Bowen is very powerful as unrepentant serial-killer Garrick Turrell, Sarah's ex, who escapes from prison apparently to pursue her and end the lives of a few others along the way. It's a story that has been done before, but this is so convincing and original in its style, it feels un-reassuringly fresh.I think sometimes the unrelenting brow-beaten melancholy gets a little too much, and the camera angles occasionally become too distracting, but these are minor quibbles really. This is a restrained, interestingly told story with a satisfying twist at the end. Writer Simon Barrett and Director Adam Wingard are clearly names to look out for.

ritera1 A textbook way to engineer a low-budget horror story without losing any of the tension and humanity. The use of music was a bit heavy-handed but did its job and covered for the lack of budget in creating more interesting visuals.Very slow, methodical and gritty. I could have used less of the bouncy camera, though. Both leads were original and well-acted. The killer's reluctance was somewhat evident throughout (but not enough) and clarified at the end with his monologue. But it was clarified at the end. Something more was needed to put his self-hatred into focus. Not reveal it all, but focus it much earlier. Thus, there was more to this story that was not explored.Now it was clearly stated that this killer had internet friends. So someone was going to give away her location from early on. That was giving away the store and should have been reigned in. But who?I'm surprised that it took me so long but I finally got it when the new boyfriend showed after the friend's murder. Maybe that was due to the good performance. After that it was waiting for the inevitable in 3 minutes. I didn't catch on that the work friends were in it, though. Then the killer shows up due to contact with one of the friends. I initially bought it and it was explained. But then I got to thinking'. Why didn't the killer alert the cops at the onset? Why didn't the killer make a bee-line to the woman if he was so concerned? Granted, the ending was done very well, but I had doubts about the timing as it took a couple weeks at least. Why did the phony boyfriend go through the relationship? (Could have been explained easily, but was not. They explained contacting the killer.) And why did the other two wait so long for the murder they wanted to commit? But good ending with the killer saving her and his monologue. Left me with an uneasy feeling on who to root for. And a very horrible feeling because she can never really trust again. I'd be curious what a sequel would look like.

mistoppi A Horrible Way to Die was in a 3 DVD movie box presented by Night Vision. I bought two of these boxes months ago, and I started the Psycho Killers box. The name paints a totally different picture of the film than what it truly is. Most of the actually deaths in this movie don't seem that horrible when you only see some mild gore here and there. Yes, a horror movie doesn't necessarily need that much gore, but when a movie has a title like this, you're expecting that. Also A Horrible Way To Die is a very straight-forward title, but the movie is far from it. The movie is quite short yet it's very slow. It takes too long for anything to happen, which makes it seem more like a seriously boring art drama. The "seriously boring art drama" feel was also enhanced by the way this film was shot. While it enhanced the creepy, haunting atmosphere, it also annoyed the hell out of me. That kind of shaky shots are good every once in a while, but not all through the movie. It's not easy to look at, and therefore not easy to follow. It wasn't just the visual side that was hard to follow. Of course I don't believe in chronological narrative anymore, because breaking the story with flashbacks work most of the time, but in A Horrible Way to Die it was sometimes really hard to tell when something happened. Of course this was enhanced by the cinematography, because you can't always see the characters and what they look like, and then realise when that scene took place and all that.The writing of this film is good though. The dialogue is as amazing as it tends to be in horror movies, it's so real. The story itself is not bad, apart from the story being so slow. The good writing can be seen in little things, like amazing twist, dialogue and whatnot. The slowness itself is not a sign of bad writing in general, but when you watch a horror movie it's frustrating when everything happens at the last minute. But the story might work well as a novel.A Horrible Way to Die is an interesting movie to say the least. While it's not actually good and I didn't enjoy watching it, it definitely stands out from the horror movies I've watched.

jgc5060 A horrible way to die is nothing more than a horrible way to make a movie. It looks like they just blasted some lights, cranked the shutter speed and did hand-held to make an "artistic" movie. Well, there is nothing "artistic" about this, and this is coming from someone who is a huge fun of unique and original F-U Hollywood film making. I'm a huge fan of Gaspar Noe, and I appreciate directors who "break the rules." These guys do nothing but shaky hand-held the whole time, and man is it annoying! The acting and music is good, but I feel like the camera man has never operated a camera before! It's the same type of shot over, and over, and over. You couldn't beat a dead horse any more than they used out of focus shots to transition scenes, and hand-held shakiness to show hectic moments in the movie.I could understand if they used some hand-held and shakiness, but maybe for 5 percent of the movie, not 95 percent! Even if your a film student, I don't think you'll like this. It looks like they shot it all in 3 days. The camera work is a far cry from human vision. Human's don't float their eyes aimlessly in a shaky haze. The only point of view shot is the point of view of a really bad camera man! It's like a really depressing and poorly made reality show.Please don't compare this movie to anything Gaspar Noe has done. Gaspar Noe's camera style isn't shaky vision, it's Gaspar Noe vision, and isn't easy to replicate, as these guys probably found out. Everything Gaspar Noe does is delivered with an original and innovative sense of technical brilliance, which this movie doesn't touch with a mile long pole. Gaspar Noe films make you interested and actually want to watch the rest of the movie, not take your eyes off screen because you have a head ache.This movie is not much more than a student film with a really nice camera and good actors. The camera work just makes it impossible to actually get into. The script doesn't really go anywhere, and there's not much suspense. The music, color grading, and acting are all decent but unfortunately, they don't know how to set up a tripod or dolly, so you have to torture yourself to see if the acting is good or not. Please invest in a tripod, or Steadicam, or just quit floating around like a film student trying to be artistic! Hand-held film making can be really awesome, but this is a very poor example. The camera-work in Blairwitch Project was better, and they didn't even know how to use a camera! Hold the camera against your head if you have to, the more points of contact the more stable. What a horrible way to make a movie.