[4] The film explores the psychological and moral ramifications of "doing a bad thing in order to achieve a good result".

[5] Two men (Charlie Carrick and Giacomo Baessato) grieving for their best friend (Arielle Rombough) discover her winning lottery ticket.

The men try to figure out how they can keep it, at first fantasizing, then actually debating, and finally plotting to murder the executrix of Ally's estate, her sister (Camille Sullivan), who otherwise would allow the winnings to go to their dead friend's abusive husband.

Seth and Nole start to scheme, jokingly at first, but eventually they "get real," concluding that murdering Casey is, paradoxically, the "right thing".

Seeking unwitting permission from Casey herself, they ask her if she would give up her life if it meant saving thousands of other lives; she answers: "In a heartbeat."

On the chosen night, everything having gone according to plan, at the last moment they try to give Casey (and themselves) a way out, telling her about the lottery ticket, pleading with her not to let it go to Ally's charity: "Is it possible that what is right isn't what you thought it was?"

Jeremy Thomas has remarked that a lot of films are about "how if you do good and you do right you will be rewarded with happiness", while those who do wrong, the "bad guys, will somehow get some sort of karmic punishment.

[6]In an interview on the Calgary-based Why We See Movies podcast,[7] Thomas contrasts his film with John Houston's Treasure of the Sierra Madre: whereas that film is about how far greed may drive someone, Ally Was Screaming is different in that Seth and Nole's rationalizations of their actions are so good that "they might be right"; they make "a very compelling argument", one of them even says he will give away his entire share to charity, showing his own motivation is ultimately not selfish.

[7] Thomas cites Frank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life as one of his favourite movies and claims to be the biggest collector of the film's memorabilia in Western Canada.

Additional support was provided through the Government of Canada film and video tax credit, and by the ACTRA membership.

On the first day of filming, Thomas was so overwhelmed by the number of crew and the amount of equipment that when someone said "rollling", he looked around at the silent room and did not realize at first that he had to say "action" before anything else happened.

Emulating Alfred Hitchcock, Thomas is also very strongly in favour of planning and storyboarding "to the frame", as opposed to "making it up" on the set.

"[12] Pia Chamberlain describes the film as by turns "hilariously funny and darkly suspenseful", a "sly, intelligent drama" that "sneaks up on you and won't let you go.

"[16] Chris Knight, writing for The National Post, assigns the film 3 stars out of 4, praising the actors "all around", and the "smart, talky screenplay ... we're never sure until the final scenes what the characters are going to do; clearly, neither are they.

The suspense makes the 88-minute running time seem at least 20 minutes longer (in a good way), as laughs and horror balance on a knife edge.

"[5] Writing for Exclaim!, Robert Bell assigns the film 3 stars, calling it an "above-average Canadian feature".

Aesthetically, it looks like an episode of Corner Gas as directed by Vincenzo Natali; less a noir than a psychological character drama about rationalizing abject behaviour, "adding a very shrewdly considered layer of dialogue about the motivations behind philanthropy.

"What's crucial here, and reiterated throughout the many long discussions about how to handle the situation, is the way people rationalize and justify their self-serving behaviour.

[17]The film struggles, however, in servicing the "basic demands of a story": Seth and Nole are interchangeable, while their abrasive, "borderline psychotic" boss is "such an over-the-top caricature that it's actually uncomfortable to watch."