I guess I'm the only one…
-
Kashtaristhereaper — 16 years ago(July 28, 2009 06:12 PM)
I enjoyed the film. I watched it as the conclusion of my Noir trilogy. Sin City, Twilight (the good one with paul newman) and this rock. there ought to be a box set, if it weren't different studios.
"I did it thirty-five minutes ago."
Watchmen
I AM ONLY LIVING OUT A LIE!!! -
rob-hymer — 16 years ago(August 18, 2009 12:19 PM)
You're not the only one. I was quite impressed with how close to the original source material the film was. OK, so none of the characters were attractive - It's based on a James Ellroy book, an author for who there are no good guys, only levels of damaged. It captures the nihilism and moral ambivalence better than I'd given a Hollywood film credit for, and even though (having read the book) I knew the ending, a good cast kept the suspense throughout.
I can see this one being reappraised as a lost classic in ten years time - and not as 'pure torture porn' as some mentalist put it. -
Nephilim-6 — 16 years ago(September 15, 2009 04:53 PM)
Just saw this. I read the negative reviews and I was hoping for a serious thriller before I started watching BUT I got a really cool film noir-ish 90's style comic book type of movie.
After about half an hour I gave up on realism and the thing just worked for me.
Did you ever notice that people who believe in creationism look really un-evolved? - Bill Hicks -
forksforrests — 15 years ago(June 09, 2010 02:59 AM)
I enjoyed it. Although it was very bizarre at times, but's something I could watch again. It was complex and visually perfect. Good movie, and I would ive it more than the 5/10 it got on this site.
Josh Hartnett wasn't that great in his rolebut whatever.
"Contempt loves the silence, it thrives in the dark" -Merchant -
yahko_kun — 15 years ago(March 02, 2011 08:13 PM)
I liked and I think the reason is I never expected anything from it. When I saw back in 2006 when it came out I never knew who Brian DePalma was, I "saw" scarface years before to even understand whats what. I saw the Untouchables was later.
Did it feel noir to me - absolutely. I think this was the reason I like that film. I actually watched it in the same week as I watched Hollywoodland. The acting maybe was over done in some parts and too pushed. The story line might have made no sense to some people - but then again it was Brian's interpretation of that murder case. I liked it more than I liked Untouchables. -
rabit818 — 14 years ago(October 04, 2011 10:04 AM)
You are not alone. The minute Scarlett Johanssen entered the frame, I was hooked. Hilary Swank camped it up - another good thing. For those who did not get it, too bad. For people comparing Black Dahlia with Scarface, two different creatures. It is like comparing Please, Please Me with Sgt. Pepper's LHCB, totally two different animals. It is film noir going through De Palma's filter and it is a good thing.
-
dalldorfw — 12 years ago(December 17, 2013 04:56 PM)
This is a damn good movie; a few mild flaws here and there, but great and memorable flick overall! The ending is haunting and I love how it plays like a 40's film-noir with a modern edge. I also like the blend of fact and fiction; the two are mixed just about perfectly! All the criticisms I've seen so far just seem like a bunch of meaningless nip-picks that are thrown out there because, evidently, it's a sin to like any de Palma movie that isn't 'Scarface'.
-
PterryFan — 12 years ago(February 25, 2014 11:45 AM)
I enjoyed it, a good movie though not a great one .
Not as good as L.A.confidential .
And yes the plot was very confusing.
Nitpicks,Bucky was too "pretty" to be convincing as a boxer or even a cop, and his non stop anger got very boring . -
tobias_681 — 10 years ago(August 19, 2015 04:22 PM)
I didn't like it excactly but I thought it was somewhat ok. The visuals were nice, the acting was good and the actors were fitting (especially Hartnett and Johansson fitted really well in my book). However the plot is in my opinion a mess. It's not as ununderstandable as people make it to be but there is no focus whatsoever. Sub-plots emerge, fade into the background, suddenly reemerge without remotely enough background. I get that it tried to cover multiple themes but none of them really did it and that's a shame because it really has it's moments. For instance the B/W clips of Elisabeth are a wonderful way to interact with the cops (and Mia Kirshner does a great job). It's just as exploiting as some of De Palma's other movies manage to be., peeping really is one of his favorite themes and he has a hand for it. But I think ultimately it falls flat because of the lacking focus. I've read that there was a different cut that Elroy himself enjoyed but it seems like it was altered (by the studio I think) before release. If they had released the original version this might have actually been really good, who knows.
You see things; and you say Why? But I dream things that never were and I say Why not? -
Spikeopath — 10 years ago(September 04, 2015 02:28 PM)
No you are not. While problems are evident, it's definitely better than its reputation in my eyes, certainly coming at it from a film noir lover's perspective it has much to laud.
But minority we shall be. Ho-Hum.
The
SpikeopathHospital Number
217