[5][6] The film takes place in 1980s Texas and is based on the novel Cold in July by author Joe R. Lansdale.

However, when the Danes arrive home to find their front door broken in, the family is put under police protection.

He sees the police forcibly remove Ben from the car, and inject him with an unknown substance, splash him with alcohol, and leave him on train tracks to die.

Ray Price visits Richard at work and claims that Freddy changed his appearance to avoid capture, explaining the discrepancy in the wanted poster.

Richard is visited by Jim Bob Luke—a private investigator known by Ben—who says the name Fred Russell is tied to several widely circulated news stories about the killing of a burglar.

Jim believes the police already know about the videos but are unconcerned because Freddy is far more valuable as an informant against the Dixie Mafia while the victims are illegal immigrants whom few will miss.

[10] In order to reassure financiers, Mickle described Korean thrillers that had succeeded with similar shifts in tone, but he says that he doubts that he convinced anyone.

Shepard returned with a single typewritten page and offered to run it by Damici, but Mickle said it was not necessary and accepted it as-is.

Buyers had previously encouraged him to re-cut one of his films so that audiences could easily identify the genre, limited to six subgenres, in the first ten minutes.

[9] In September 2013, Sam Shepard, Don Johnson, and Vinessa Shaw joined Michael C. Hall, who had already been cast.

Cold in July was filmed after Dexter ended, and Hall was drawn to the role based on his desire to play a more normal character; Hall called the role therapeutic, as it allowed him to move on from playing the iconic serial killer Dexter Morgan.

[16] The role further appealed to Hall for his character's lack of control over his own life, which contrasted strongly with the self-assured and in-control Dexter.

Hall further impressed Mickle with his off-screen personality, which was surprisingly normal and completely unlike his TV characters.

[18] Shepard expressed interest in the script, and Moran suggested casting Don Johnson, who had impressed Mickle with his recent film roles.

[1] Mickle called Cold in July "the other side of the coin" to We Are What We Are; and a film about being "sucked into your own kind of action movie.

[25] Mickle said that he never before had to cut scenes from his films during editing, but Cold in July was "a constant balance of shifting things, removing sub plots, and putting them back in different places.

Mickle and Grace had collaborated on several films previously, and they had earlier planned what kind of score they wanted for Cold in July.

The consensus is: "Boasting plenty of twists, a suitably seedy tone, and a memorable supporting turn from Don Johnson, Cold in July proves an uncommonly rewarding thriller.

[37] David Rooney of The Hollywood Reporter wrote, "Jim Mickle continues to show that he's among the most distinctive genre filmmakers on the indie scene with this cracked but flavorful thriller.

"[38] Film Threat's Brian Tallerico rated it 3.5/5 and wrote, "Any issues with the actual narrative fall away when one considers the risk-taking here.

"[39] Andrew O'Hehir of Salon.com called it "tense, gripping, gruesome, often hilarious, brilliantly engineered and highly satisfying".

[40] At Twitch Film, Todd Brown called it "a remarkable bit of work from one of the brightest lights on the American indie scene".

[41] Rodrigo Perez of Indiewire wrote that the film is initially irritating and contrived, but it becomes "far better than it has any right to be and perhaps, more significantly, is unusually absorbing and memorable".

[42] Scott Foundas of Variety described it as "a modest, unpretentious exercise in old-fashioned thrills and chills, made with a level of care and craft that elevates it well above the fray".

[44] Betsy Sharkey of the Los Angeles Times wrote, "Tense and violent, it grabs you from the first moments and rarely loosens its hold until the last body drops.

"[45] Writing in Slant Magazine, Ed Gonzalez rated it 2.5/4 stars and called it a "compulsively watchable" film that eventually "falls into a rabbit hole of tiresome plot machinations".

[47] Although he criticized the frequent shifts in tone, Mark Kermode of The Guardian rated it 3/5 stars and praised the film's attention to detail.