Watch Methodic For Free

Sorry, this movie sucks

Purely Joyful Movie!

Just perfect...

Boring

I think this movie begs the question, "Should points be given for effort?" The verdict's still out.But let's start with the good -- Understanding that this script started as a treatment for a Halloween remake, I'll forgive the similarities and say that the script and dialog is actually pretty well executed. Sure there are a few issues with line delivery in spots, but the script as a separate entity isn't horrible.Second, the music was all completely on cue and built the scenes nicely. It wasn't overused and it never detracted from any of the scenes.Third, I mean -- talk about indie, talk about zero budget. This is what it looks like, folks. A film like "Ink" (which is certainly a class well above this), was made for $250,000. There's a huge difference between zero and $250,000.Where this movie really misses the mark are with issues related to budget but also some missteps by the director.Without using any real camera lenses the framing had a lot of issues. This would have been an easy solve for a few hundred bucks by slapping a 35mm adapter on whatever consumer HD cam he used for the project. I'm assuming it was in the realm of an HV20 or some lesser model. Had this been shot on any kind of DSLR or something with an adapter, some of the framing issues would have been solved. I saw attempts by the director to set up interesting shots, but when you're using a jitty camcorder with no lenses, it's nearly impossible unless you're manufacturing a DOF by having objects or talent always in the foreground, which isn't possible throughout an entire film.Lighting was another huge issue, and being that lighting can be solved using foam board and halogen work lights, I'm going to have to stick it to the director on this one. There are some basics of lighting that need to be studied before this guy's next feature (or fan) film."Crossing the line" -- that's what it's called when you move your talent from one side of the screen to the other mid-scene. This happened too many times. It's a rookie mistake and it's utterly confusing to the audience when it happens. So, to the director: If your actor is on the right side of the frame in a scene, that actor must stay on the right side of the frame throughout. If you want to move between two mid-range shots but don't want to cut from one mid-range shot to the next, then do a quick wide shot and then come back to your second shot.Next is color correction. This, of course, can still be linked to budget. But something as cheap as Magic Bullet Mojo ($99) would have given your scenes a more cohesive blending and would have given your camcorder footage a more filmic appearance.Location colors. This is probably the easiest thing to slip by the indie filmmaker. While you're probably going to have to use friends and family's locations to shoot your film, you CANNOT allow white walls to be in your film. Obviously the hospital is a different animal and most of that will have a blue tint when your color correction is done anyway (assuming you go the Blockbuster route), but when you're indoors you have to paint those walls. If it's a friend's house, paint the walls and then re-paint them white again if that's what they need. Go watch Amelie with the sound off. Watch the frames. Aim there.Last...I know it sucks and I know the director knows it...but sound was a big issue. Not sure what kind of mic was used. At times it sounded like the mic was on-camera which is just the worst thing I can possible imagine for a narrative piece. I can see how much work and effort was put into this film. There was some decent acting, a workable script, good pacing and at times some real effort went into framing certain scenes. But having lackluster audio, an amateurish understanding of talent placement in a scene (as it pertains to audience clarity) and a camcorder with no added glass for DOF, the director left us with a highschool-level product performed and written by adults.I want this director to get better because he has passion for all levels of filmmaking. I gave the movie 5 stars for potential.So, to the no-budget director of this film: 1) Pick yourself up a DSLR or HFS100 w/ JAG35pro or better (Panny and Sony just came out with 5K cams that are game changers) 2) Get some Sanken COS11D lavs and an NTG3 with an Edirol44 or Fostex FR2LE w/ Y XLR splitter cable 3) Grab a PRO AM 250 crane/jib 4) Magic Bullet Looks (or Mojo) And if you can, try to find someone who wouldn't mind training as your sound guy/girl. You're gonna need one.But kudos on your first effort. Your gal was completely solid in the lead role.Good luck!

I am a fan of well made, low budget horror films, this is not one of them. For starters, the acting fluctuates between mediocre and terrible, the camera work is pretty bad as well and there is not really a scary moment in this film. Their are also so many unrealistic things about this film its not funny. For one, this kid of about 10 goes into the mental institution for 20 yrs, when he escapes he breaks into a house and finds a sewing machine in the closet and somehow knows how to make his own costume, then he kills the girl in the house, finds the keys to the car and drives off. I guess he was taught these things subliminally since he was unresponsive for 20 yrs. Many of people in the beginning of the film prior to the 20 yrs are the same people after showing no signs of age, I think the special effects in this film are limited to a couple of tubes of vampire blood that you can get at K-Mart. The highlight of the film was a lesbian sex scene between a decent looking blonde & a Miss Piggy looking brunette, and that wasn't even very good. Do yourself a favor and pass this one by.

Watching this, movie, one gets the distinct feeling of watching something else other than what was picked from the online menu. The beginning of the movie has the striking resemblance of that idiotic movie, "Cloverfield," as we see a video camera recording a birthday party. The nine-year old boy, Nathan Matthews, is silent as he draws a picture of a "Dollman." As the movie progressed, it became a "fourth wall" movie instead of a dweeb running around with a camera. That was the good point.The movie progressed, slowly, to where he murders his parents, goes after his younger sister before being stopped by his older sister. Eventually the story leaps twenty years where the kid is now a man living in a mental ward and handcuffed to a wheelchair. His little sister, and former target, wants to "connect" with him. When she does, a series of plot holes big enough for downtown traffic starts to appear.Nathan escapes from the hospital and makes it to his former home (His sibling still live in the same house?). He grabs a sewing machine and makes a Dollman costume (He learned to sew in the mental ward?). Then he steals a set of keys and drives around (He learned to drive in the mental ward?), looking for victims. The cop who originally investigated the case suffers a heart attack on an unrelated case, but learning of Nathan's escape, tells his now-suspended partner to take his gun (he has a gun in the hospital?), and go after Nathan. Later, this same cop has a set of keys around his neck (after suffering a heart attack and going through all that?) If you've seen the first Halloween movie, you've seen this one.The only other part in this movie, which was filler, was the lesbian scene. No point, other than to have a sex scene. Instead of naming it "Methodic" (What method?), this movie should have been named "Dollman," only it would be another monster-named movie like "Candyman", "Mothman", and other "-man" movies.

I thought I should edit my initial review because, while I had and now continue to firmly believe that this film's score is being bumped up by people associated with the cast and crew, I didn't think it was fair to rate it without finishing the film. And now I know, instead of just suspecting, that this film stays just as awful as it starts. As I am forced to leave at least 1 star I will now dedicate this star to the actor playing the police chief, as he was the only one that didn't seem to be headed for a career in porn.Why is this film so terrible, well, beyond the aforementioned acting torture (worst of all was the lesbian I would say), this film is unoriginal. It starts off less as an homage to Halloween and more like a rip off. From there it spirals into Fallen, along with ripping off ideas from the Exorcist. Now I know I've seen that exact scene with the fake seizure before, but I can't place which film it was.Now I've read the other reviews. So before anyone gets all huffy, I realize that the director was planning on a Halloween remake, although I doubt the timing with Rob Zombie is the only reason he wasn't able to do it. I can't imagine any film student choosing to do a remake of one of the most well respected horror films as their first feature ... especially knowing that they only have the budget for a 10 day shoot.To me the film reeked of laziness, both in idea and execution. The lighting was awful. The sound was awful. The dialogue was bland and often poorly delivered. Even in the first half hour it seemed as though there were about 10 minutes that should have been trimmed in editing to help with pacing and also because they didn't do anything for the story. And it didn't seem like the director strayed far from the campus with extras and small parts... a mental hospital that is only for the 20 something set? This film is just sloppy and not really original.I've seen films in the 48 hour film festival that seemed to have more thought and care put into them than this. Maybe it could have made it as a short, but it doesn't have enough meat for a feature.