DDPhilly I'm serious! I don't understand the jealous hatred some "reviewers" post about this film both here and especially on Amazon. I guess it's true. Those who can't do, BASH! Speaking of "bash", METHODIC has the distinction of being the very first "basher" film! Anyway, sure there's a similarity to HALLOWEEN, but director Chris R. Notarile freely admits his love of that film and that METHODIC was originally intended as a reboot / remake of the John Carpenter classic.All that aside, METHODIC starts out on familiar ground with a small boy who kills his parents, but quickly develops into it's own interesting and original story where we learn that the entity known as "The Dollman" is more like a virus than a spirit so anyone can't become The Dollman. This theme is explored more in the short sequel METHODIC 1.5 and that film shows where the storyline is going and it has nothing to do with HALLOWEEN !! As for the acting, Brandon Slagle, Niki Rubin, Tony Dadika and Stephen Muzzonigro completely nail their roles and the supporting cast is equally as good with standouts being Daniel Werzinger, Christine Allanach and Roberto Lombardi (who's storyline features heavily in METHODIC 1.5). Also, having Charles Cyphers in the movie is AMAZING! Visually, METHODIC is stark and disturbing in all the right places and the music really enhances the visuals. Pick this up if you like old school horror with a good story. If you're into body count movies about drunk teens, pass on this!

BCRice 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!

Pete975 Despite the high praise from reviews which misled me into watching this film I really did not find it a very satisfying watch.The story seems to feature familiar elements from at least two other films - the boy killer locked in hospital most of life till he escapes and hunts down his surviving family which really shows it's Halloween influence. I think the script and the performances of the actors are the elements that really failed to connect with me. Lines were fluffed and stumbled over and screaming was used as a substitute for emoting more than once. The whole demonic thing was dropped into the film almost like it had Fallen out of another film. So much of the film was wasted in scenes of little relevance and yet very little time was used to establish that this was a demonic possession. A completely irrelevant lesbian love scene forces it way into the story for no good reason heaves itself to a climax before expiring brutally just as expected.

acdcrocks11 Wow. Where do I begin with this? I guess I'll start with the story which I assume is reworked from Chris' Halloween script. It plays out very well. The basher format is a welcome addition to the horror genre. Something new. I enjoyed it, anyway. It certainly isn't for everyone. The implied violence that Chris uses in the story works well as if we had to see everything, this would be completely brutal. Thank you Chris for realizing that some things are better left to imagination. The characters are well written as well. You actually like the Lana character. Some of the others are likable too, the main exception being the Doctor, but we all know what his purpose is, haha. The twists and turns toward the end were unexpected and therefore work well. It is because of those twists that this should seriously NOT be considered a Halloween ripoff.Now, as for the look of this film, you can't even tell it's an indie. It looks great. Chris uses some very unique pans and shots which turn out great as well. I love the lighting and locations that were used here. They really capture an eerie atmosphere that suits the film well. And that hospital? Creepy, creepy place. That's the only way to describe it. When camera work comes into play in some scenes, Chris handles the convulsions in an awesome way and I think it was a nice touch to complement the Dollman's rage. There is a nice little scene that Chris uses to his advantage to build tension. Loved it. And some of those kills, man…..my goodness.And then there's that……ending. Awesome.Haha. Very well done, Chris.9.5/10.I only give you that rating as it could have been longer, but hell….it's nearly perfect the way it is. Unique, new, and unexpected. A pleasant surprise.