jonathanpfeiffer

"The Death that Awaits" proves that marketing can be the first misstep in a film's journey to its audience. Billed as a slow-burn horror, this 102-minute feature ultimately delivers neither the promised horror elements nor enough dramatic tension to justify its glacial pacing.

The film follows a drifter who takes a position caring for a mysteriously ill teenager in the countryside, but the intrigue suggested by this premise never fully materializes. While the technical elements are competent - the RED cameras capture the rural setting with appropriate atmosphere, and the Zeiss lenses lend a classical cinematic quality to the visuals - these production values feel wasted on a story that struggles to find its identity.

The transformation subplot, which should serve as the narrative's driving force, unfolds with such restraint that it borders on inertia. The parents' supposedly sinister efforts to prevent this change lack the urgency or menace needed to generate genuine suspense. While the actors deliver serviceable performances, they're hampered by a script that mistakes silence for substance and slowness for sophistication.

Most problematic is the film's horror classification. Viewers expecting genre thrills will find themselves waiting for scares that never arrive. This mismarketing does a disservice to both the film and its audience, as "The Death that Awaits" might have found a more appreciative viewership if positioned as a straight drama about family secrets and rural isolation.

The production values and competent performances suggest this could have found a comfortable home as a made-for-television feature, where expectations might better align with its modest ambitions. Instead, it exists in an uncomfortable limbo - too subdued for horror fans, too slight for art-house audiences, and too languid for mainstream viewers seeking entertainment. Sometimes the death that awaits is simply the slow expiration of audience interest.

Ok, I normally don't review movies but as an extreme horror fan, I was compelled to after watching Smile. Honestly, I don't understand all these high ratings for such a generic horror with not really much originality. Maybe I have watched too much horror, but I was disappointed watching Smile as, based on so many high ratings, this movie was supposed to be the scariest most disturbing thing in recent history! Ok, the acting was pretty good for a horror, the premise was interesting, and the CGI scenes were alright. However, there is really no scary/disturbing parts except for the many, many, many jump scares. The saddest part is that if you have seen the trailer, you have already seen, what I would consider the most unique horror moment in this movie. I was creeped out by this scene the first time I saw the trailer and was really disappointed that no other scenes in the movie were comparable. Can't say it was a complete waste of time but I would say that it is not as great as people are making it out to be. It is a good watch but don't expect anything really original.

Ok, this review may be partial parody. Honestly, I watched it all the way through. Normally, when I see a movie this poorly done, I stop the movie and check out something else. This movie was so entertaining in an absolutely, 'who the hell provided the budget this for movie?'-kind of way that I had to watch it through. Yes, the acting is horrible, the special effects are laughable, and the story is absolute trash, but the effort the actors/actresses put in to making this garbage makes it worth a watch. The most absurd thing for me was the magic wand. Like, I can quasi-understand the rest of the movie but where did the magic wand come from? Honestly, if you are bored and want to watch comedy horror, this is a must-see (as long as you are not expecting anything resembling a Hollywood production/more like a high school project shot with a camcorder and neighbors as extras).