Method

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.

The expression "method" was coined by the acting teacher Lee Strasberg to describe his unique interpretation of the acting techniques of the Russian director Constantin Stanislavsky. In the 1950s, Strasberg was the guru of the famed Actors Studio of New York where many great film actors honed their craft with the master. Strasberg's authoritarian style was legendary as he watched the actors perform scenes and monologues and then proceeded to psychoanalyze the actors and their choices.

Mr. Strasberg would be truly appalled by the trite and cliché-ridden "Method." The film seeks to weave two stories in a "play-within-a-play" style. Unfortunately, neither one of the stories is interesting, and the main problem is the script. Much of the dialogue was laughable. Also, the production values of this film seemed amateurish with special effects and scenes of violence that were not credible. Sadly, the good premise of a story about an actress who loses touch with reality and "becomes the character" was not realized, despite the good efforts of the cast.

The classic film "A Double Life" (1947) was successful in developing this premise as the actor playing Othello is so enmeshed within his character that he commits a real-life murder. The screenwriters for "A Double Life" were the brilliant team of Garson Kanin and Ruth Gordon, from whom the writers of "Method" could have learned a lesson worthy of the great teacher Lee Strasberg.

I am very interested in the Belle Gunness story , and I had great hopes for this movie before reading the reviews here. I hope its not as bad as I hear. I'll be back to give my opinion. I would like to see some really well investigated movie made on Belles life. I would like questions answered that apparently aren't in this film. Although it is bound to be enjoyable if taken at face value, I got interested in it because it was supposed to be about Belle and the murders at LaPorte.. when I went to look to view it , I find its called something else other than Method and is only loosely related to Bele Gunness after all. Shame . Its called Dead Even outside of the USA. .

Rebecca Fairbanks (Hurley) is finally returning to the silver screen, after a three year absence, in the role of serial murderess Belle Gunnes. Fairbanks is acting alongside her old flame, movie star hunk Jake Fields (Sisto). In order to totally immerse herself in the role and get the best performance she feels she can give, Fairbanks resides on set trying to live the life of Belle Gunnes. However, all becomes tragic when people begin to turn up dead and Jake is arrested as a suspect.

Method (or Dead Even as is titled on the UK DVD) is a very good thriller and is, at times, quite unnerving. The film Method features scenes from the film 'Belle' that Fairbanks and Fields are starring in. As such you get 'real action' mixed with the action for the pretend film. Iy has been said in at least one comment that it is hard to tell what is the 'real action' and what is the fake film action. I would have to disagree with this as I thought it was perfectly clear, but maybe I'm just more preceptive than some other people. The acting in this film is very, very good with the stand-out performance coming from Jeremy Sisto, brilliant actor. Elizabeth Hurley looks very good in this film, as does Jake Field's wife Bethany (Hannah Yelland). I feel sorry for Fields having to choose between these two, it's a tough call. Olivia du Sautoy is very good as Mona, the mother of actress Fairbanks, who controls her life and seems very over-protective of her daughter. I watched this last night for the first time and am left feeling the longing to watch it again tonight which is a sign of how much I liked this film. It really is a great thriller. 8/10

Cat Squire

A total waste of a rental fee. The story involves a method actress who believes in 'becoming the character'. She plays a serial killer and bodies start turning up. Did she or didn't she?

It's an interesting idea, but why-why, why, oh why--would producers spend so much money on period sets, fine actors, beautiful photography, and then use such an incoherent, cliché-ridden script. My mother and I watched it together, and together we couldn't figure out what was going on half the time. The movie jumps back and forth between the film and the film-within-the-film and the filming-of-the-film-within-the-film (still in period costume, so you don't know at first), and from reality to hallucination. At the end it's not really made clear who killed who, and some of the answers aren't really credible. Why waste a lovely woman like Elizabeth Hurley in such a piece of poo-poo?