This is just one big mess of a movie. It has no storyline, they just threw in bunch of stuff and belive me, its not worth wasting your time watching it.
7 Reviews
NOT WORTH YOUR TIME
merjembejtic1 January 2019
Oh disappointing
NuttyBaby9 March 2023
Warning: Spoilers
This had the scenes of a good horror movie but it was flat. Four friends stay in a cabin in the middle of a wood, and one of them decides to pull a prank on them. She puts hidden cameras in every room, which was creepy. Her idea was to frighten her friends for some college project but no good friend would behave like that. All four girls were acting like children, all excited, until they started messing with a ouija board. Meanwhile there's a strange man lurking around, who I guess was the handyman, but I think there's more to him. By the end of the film, I was very disappointed. As it made no sense at all. Now I think this handyman was checking on the women in the house, not because he's a killer or anything but because he suspects its haunted and can see ghosts. Yes, the women who arrived there are dead, and this man is alive and curious about strange voices and lights. If only the film went in that direction instead of farting around looking weird.
Be afraid
kosmasp13 April 2021
The other day I had a sort of "watch as many low budget movies as possible - and try to find one that is not a complete waste of time". Now you could call this public service, you might not even care or think I'm crazy considering the titles I did endure.
This one was one of the better ones I saw, for a few reasons. One of them being that the actors actually earn that name ... even if the movie isn't really testing their quality overall. Still if you are into horror movies and a group of people being ... well having issues, you could do worse. The horror is real and you might be able to cut this some slack. Your choice.
This one was one of the better ones I saw, for a few reasons. One of them being that the actors actually earn that name ... even if the movie isn't really testing their quality overall. Still if you are into horror movies and a group of people being ... well having issues, you could do worse. The horror is real and you might be able to cut this some slack. Your choice.
Who rated this movie a 7.1??
jamiej-1863326 August 2018
Astoundingly poor writing, from start to finish
I_Ailurophile31 July 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I like Kat Barrell. I want to see her in more things. I thought I'd try 'Definition of fear' - how bad could it be?
The answer, it turns out, was "worse than I could have imagined."
I was discouraged when the title was spoken very emphatically in a line of dialogue within the first 5 minutes. It didn't get better - in fact it got far, far worse - and it was so desperately unexciting that I kept nodding off while watching, frequently needing to rewind.
Dialogue is pedestrian or altogether rotten. Overused horror tropes entirely define the movie, including too many instances to count of characters being startled by innocuous sounds, or seemingly nothing at all. Tired, unremarkable, mood-setting music is as conspicuous as any could be. Early scenes of exposition are horribly awkward, and filmmaker James Simpson has likewise guided the cast into the most ham-fisted of performances. True from the very beginning, but progressively so as "spooky" occurrences increase - everything about 'Definition of fear' is so overwrought that it feels like a parody of a horror movie. Except it's not a parody - and were it intended to be or not, it's not funny, either.
Characters are paper thin, and we're led to believe the cast has injected more personality into their parts, by the mere fact of their acting, than the writing did. Plot development is direly slow, sparse, and unconvincing. Story beats come and go with no apparent rhyme or reason - and this is so for literally almost every story beat, including the climax. There don't appear to be many connections between A and B, and even less rationale for anything that transpires; things happen not because they make narrative sense, but simply because the screenplay demands it. One secondary character, specifically shown to us several times, is entirely extraneous, lacking any actual purpose in the movie. It's like Simpson believes showcasing scenes and characters that are in no way connected to the plot is a masterstroke of cinematic genius.
I like Barrell - I know to a certainty she's a fine actress - and I have no particular reason to broadly doubt her co-stars, either. But Simpson's screenplay and direction forces them all into performances that are plainly beneath them, suggesting the sort of schlocky foulness that induces moviegoers to call for the rescinding of past accolades, or that can sideline careers. How did any of them get roped into this production?
It's not even worth discussing Simpson's equally unimpressive direction, or the questionable use of special effects: However terribly other aspects of 'Definition of fear' are realized, none of them can begin to compare to the writing. I can immediately think of frightfully few movies whose screenplays were so similarly careless, unbelievable, actively irritating, and all-around weak. Preteen children sharing scary stories in the dark, unable to conjure narrative flow or a satisfying ending to their tale, may nonetheless have a chance at besting Simpson's storytelling.
I had low expectations to begin with, and still the bottom dropped out. I don't generally like to bad-mouth films outright, yet I lack the words to meaningfully convey just how excruciatingly putrid this is. It's so abhorrent in its crafting as to be offensive; never before have I so clearly understood the late, great Roger Ebert's description of movies so vapid as to be inherently insulting to their audience.
If this movie actually reflects the 'Definition of fear,' then I'd have to interpret "fear" as being a synonym for "nadir."
Do not watch this.
The answer, it turns out, was "worse than I could have imagined."
I was discouraged when the title was spoken very emphatically in a line of dialogue within the first 5 minutes. It didn't get better - in fact it got far, far worse - and it was so desperately unexciting that I kept nodding off while watching, frequently needing to rewind.
Dialogue is pedestrian or altogether rotten. Overused horror tropes entirely define the movie, including too many instances to count of characters being startled by innocuous sounds, or seemingly nothing at all. Tired, unremarkable, mood-setting music is as conspicuous as any could be. Early scenes of exposition are horribly awkward, and filmmaker James Simpson has likewise guided the cast into the most ham-fisted of performances. True from the very beginning, but progressively so as "spooky" occurrences increase - everything about 'Definition of fear' is so overwrought that it feels like a parody of a horror movie. Except it's not a parody - and were it intended to be or not, it's not funny, either.
Characters are paper thin, and we're led to believe the cast has injected more personality into their parts, by the mere fact of their acting, than the writing did. Plot development is direly slow, sparse, and unconvincing. Story beats come and go with no apparent rhyme or reason - and this is so for literally almost every story beat, including the climax. There don't appear to be many connections between A and B, and even less rationale for anything that transpires; things happen not because they make narrative sense, but simply because the screenplay demands it. One secondary character, specifically shown to us several times, is entirely extraneous, lacking any actual purpose in the movie. It's like Simpson believes showcasing scenes and characters that are in no way connected to the plot is a masterstroke of cinematic genius.
I like Barrell - I know to a certainty she's a fine actress - and I have no particular reason to broadly doubt her co-stars, either. But Simpson's screenplay and direction forces them all into performances that are plainly beneath them, suggesting the sort of schlocky foulness that induces moviegoers to call for the rescinding of past accolades, or that can sideline careers. How did any of them get roped into this production?
It's not even worth discussing Simpson's equally unimpressive direction, or the questionable use of special effects: However terribly other aspects of 'Definition of fear' are realized, none of them can begin to compare to the writing. I can immediately think of frightfully few movies whose screenplays were so similarly careless, unbelievable, actively irritating, and all-around weak. Preteen children sharing scary stories in the dark, unable to conjure narrative flow or a satisfying ending to their tale, may nonetheless have a chance at besting Simpson's storytelling.
I had low expectations to begin with, and still the bottom dropped out. I don't generally like to bad-mouth films outright, yet I lack the words to meaningfully convey just how excruciatingly putrid this is. It's so abhorrent in its crafting as to be offensive; never before have I so clearly understood the late, great Roger Ebert's description of movies so vapid as to be inherently insulting to their audience.
If this movie actually reflects the 'Definition of fear,' then I'd have to interpret "fear" as being a synonym for "nadir."
Do not watch this.
Worst movie award goes to... yep! This disaster
nikale-130 November 2018
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
