The Worst Film Ever

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

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!

I admit I have watched many of Liz Hurley's movies. Almost every one of them has been a disappointment (she was actually very good as an addict in "Shameless" about 15 years ago).Hardcore Liz fans should stick to "Bedazzled" and "Passenger 57". Sisto has plenty of good work in circulation; I am amazed that he stooped to this tripe. The DVD set of the short lived TV show "Kidnapped" is worth the price of admission. It even has Carmen Ejogo, an Englishwoman who can act circles around Hurley.Do not waste your time on this poor excuse of a mystery. You'd be better off doing your income taxes. And at least the tax return has a conclusion worthy of being called that.

If there is something like an average B movie nowadays 'Method' would fill in this role. The story combines in two interleaved threads the story of a 19th century serial killer, a widow attracting older man with promises of re-marriage and killing them to rob them of their money with the story of the making of the movie, in which the the principal actors live their own love story which becomes soon a murder story. The rather thin premise of the movie is that the acting method of identifying with the real life character can lead to the violence of the story penetrating real life.Although decently filmed and acted the movie suffers because lack of ambition and imagination. Much more could have been achieved by a more skilled director out of the violent fiction story slowly penetrating life. Although crime and suffering happens on the screen, we really do not care too much about this as viewers, one of the reasons being maybe because it is not clear whether the suffering happens in the fiction plan we are less involved with, and also maybe because the flat performance of Jeremy Sisto, the weakest from all the cast, in my opinion.It's a film easy to forget. I will probably remember nothing about it in a week or so.

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.