Watch Method For Free
Method
The line between fantasy and reality blurs when an actress begins behaving like the 19th-century murderer she is playing.
Release : | 2004 |
Rating : | 4.4 |
Studio : | Andrew Stevens Entertainment, DEJ Productions, Method Company, |
Crew : | Art Direction, Production Design, |
Cast : | Elizabeth Hurley Jeremy Sisto Oliver Tobias Carmen du Sautoy John Barrowman |
Genre : | Thriller |
Watch Trailer
Cast List
Related Movies
Reviews
Very well executed
Pretty Good
Masterful Cinema
A Disappointing Continuation
For some reason this came up as a horror, I assure you it isn't.It tells the story of an actress returning to the spotlight for a new movie. She decides to live on set and really become the character, trouble is she takes it a tad far and before you know it events in the movie and events in real life start to merge.Starring the underrated Jeremy Sisto, the overrated Liz Hurley, British favorite John Barrowman and Heavy Rain (2010) star Sam Douglas it's not the cast that fails it.Though I appreciate what they were going for it simply doesn't work, at all. It's a messy poorly constructed not so thrilling thriller.Liz Hurley isn't a leading lady, she's a bit part character. One of those actresses who is pretty and looks the part on camera but doesn't have the acting chops and needs that weakness disguised with minimal lines.Badly written mess, simple as that.The Good:Interesting conceptSam DouglasThe Bad:Bad deliveryHurley isn't up to a lead roleThings I Learnt From This Movie:Sam Douglas needs more high profile jobs!
Jeremy Sisto and Elizabeth Hurley very earnestly work hard to make this shockingly bad film decent, but they simply can't. It is a maudlin mess of poorly written and directed dreck from Duncan Roy. Plot summary already attached to this film's IMDb posting, I will dispense with much of the redundant plot summary, but when Hurley barks out of the shack door to drifter Sisto's character "Hey, can you mend a fey-ance?" (it is turn of the century Indiana after all, so expect heavy accents), I knew this thing was heading down state in a durn hurry. Perhaps five minutes later, gentleman callers are arranged by mail to come see the impossibly beautiful Hurley to arrange marriage. With heavy brows does our fence fixer Sisto disapprove of Hurley's mail order suitors, referred to as her brother. Do we even need to delve into the budding melodrama of this period piece? Wait! O dreaded gimmicks, worse than a triptych, first person narrative, or chapter supertitles, we are fed a steaming dish of a film within a film. My word, I don't think this kind of thing has ever been done before! Oh wait, well, you know. The only interesting things about Method are Hurley's beauty, Sisto's effort, and the infamous off screen battles between the insane director Duncan Roy and Liz Hurley. The final product, though, stinks to high heaven.
In the real world people learn from mistakes. Players in Hollywood apparently feel no need to learn from mistakes. Case in point: METHOD. This beautifully shot but badly edited film is eerily similar to the beautifully shot but badly edited film THE WEIGHT OF WATER. Producers of these films obviously spent a lot of money on stars, sets, costumes, locations, equipment, etc. Directors of these films actually had good story to work with. Yet, in the end, both films don't work. In an attempt to dazzle the audience by interweaving the past with the present using slick editing techniques, the directors weaken the credibility of the story as well as confuse the audience. Regarding the story lines, both employ some type of mysterious karmic influence between people of the past and people in the present. Although this is probably a good plot device, it has to be believable, which it isn't in these two movies. Once last point: Elizabeth Hurley happens to be in both of these movies. I would love to know if she tried to point out to the producer and director of METHOD that THE WEIGHT OF WATER was very similar and didn't really work. If she did, why didn't they listen? And if she didn't, I guess she only wants to collect a paycheck.
Here we have two movies for the price of one. Unfortunately one movie plus one other movie does not make even one good movie. Method is the story of a beautiful actress in the come-back role of a lifetime. So, Rebecca (the beautiful actress) portrays a serial killer in a supposedly true tale of Belle (the beautiful serial killer.) A major portion of Method is the movie Belle. Herein lies the problem--the movie in the movie is actually more interesting than the movie we are paying to see. We are to believe that Rebecca(Elizabeth Hurley) is so mentally unstable that, spurred by her overbearing mother's interference, begins to associate completely with the murderous Belle, finally assuming her character. (Hence: "Method"). There is a predictable ending to "Belle", and a surprise ending to "Method", which is also predictable.Two stars out of ten for "Belle", one star for "Method". An extra star for Elizabeth Hurley(sorry about the bias, I just think she's beautiful). Total = 4 stars out of 10.