Methodic

I was invited to see a private screening of Methodic the other day and WOW, what a cool idea for a movie. I've read what everyone else has posted and I think they're pretty spot on with how the movie was. It's no joke that it starts out as a slow place, but it totally pays off in the end. Chris Notarile and Brandon Slagle wrote the script which was based on a remake script Chris had made for Halloween. And when you watch the film, at first you're thinking to yourself "okay, where is he going with this?" Then about half way in, you think you might have figured it out and are calling how it will end. Yeah, that's when the film takes a crazy left turn and totally throws you off track. What starts out like a Halloween movie completely becomes something entirely different, and it works. The 3rd act is what makes this movie so fun and original. The Dollman is more than meets the eye as is the story. And it really makes you think. So yes, watch this movie. Its worth it.

Very low budget effort from a director who has made a name for himself in fanfilms. Frankly, this is more of the same, a thinly veiled remake of Halloween. Why, when given the chance to do something original he fell back on the tried and true is a mystery and a bit of a shame as there is considerable talent on display. Even casting a family member as the lead worked out as she is one of the better actors in the film.

The reviews here are suspiciously high, I have to assume they are from friends and cast members. (Ironically, I found out about this film due to a feud the director is having with another filmmaker who does the same astroturfing!) Knock it off guys! My advice to Mr Notarile would be to do something entirely new. he has shown he can make a good film based on the ideas of others, now take that and do something we haven't seen!

Ever sense I watched the trailers of this film on YouTube years ago I've been hooked. The film takes the famous John Carpenter classic Halloween, but instead of having bad stereotypes (dumb blonde, the "happen to be there" people, stupid know it all etc.) and gives off a new set of people (with characters who actually have a brain, deaths with blunt objects (although the film only uses its target weapon (a sludge hammer) once \=( , and a killer who will run if he needed). In my opinion its a film that gives low budget filmmakers the idea that they can make more then just a standard YouTube quality video and not have to go to Hollywood to make a film. My only problems with the film are; some over- used F-Bombs (not as bad as Rob Zombie's Halloween)(Yea I know its a non-rated, rated R film but it could be turned down a slight bit) (personal preference) and a specific transition that could be changed in the film. In conclusion the film is a great film to check out and if you can't be Michael Myers this year for Halloween, go as his adopted brother Dollman.

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 found this movie to be pretty good for being a low budget. Methodic to me is basically a halloween "Michael Myers" movie, It felt that way to me. I enjoyed watching the actors work their magic to make this movie deceit but overall I give it a 10 for allowing me to watch the entire movie with turning it off. I especially enjoy Rachel Robbins performance. Director Chris R. Notarile keep up the good work and look forward watching more of your films.