Okwhat in the HELL happened? Everything was soooooooooooooooooooooooooo confusing. Could anyone explain teh entire movie
-
BQQ — 16 years ago(November 13, 2009 05:10 PM)
As I was watching the film, I thought the second half was all in Bucky's mind, and I was expecting to see him wake up in a hospital. At least that would have made sense. Cliched, but detective losing his mind, could work. Cause otherwise, this was one of the most confusing, contrived, over-actingest pieces of cinema. De Palma has lost it.
-
redpower — 16 years ago(December 30, 2009 08:02 PM)
I think the problem with the film is nothing to do with the multiple plot lines. Its problem is we are given no clue throughout the film to suggest that the mum killed her.
Oh, and for those wondering if they would have used the word beep in this period I think the answer is a definite yes. -
arkham_asylum_london — 16 years ago(December 31, 2009 08:11 PM)
OK, just seen in the New Year (GMT) watching this and thought I'd log in here to get some answers.
Glad it wasn't just me then.
Think I'll watch LA Confidential again to remind myself I'm not thick
Oh and happy New Year everyone! -
super_frog16 — 16 years ago(January 04, 2010 06:03 PM)
I watched it with two friends and literally we all said 'what the hell' as soon as it finished. I have no clue what was going on and less of a clue about the point
I was confused from the word go, no idea why the girl was murdered and less of an idea about why that crazy old lady murdered her. She had no screen time at all and then at the end comes out, warbled something and then shot herself.
Yeah justthink this is the worst film iv ever seen.
'
The voice says i'm almost out of minutes
'
proud saltgunner! -
thatguy_78757 — 16 years ago(March 31, 2010 08:33 PM)
shmeevill
thank for pointing out what not many have the guts to say
I was baffled by this movie.
and it is NOT a case "Im too dumb to get, if I were as smart as you- Id get it"
it is confusingly told and that makes it bad cinema
beautiful LOOKING film, badly written
I looked at that synopsis someone posted here
it helped, but good art shouldnt need a synopsis, it should speak for itself
ps aside from a woman names elizabeth short being murdered- NONE of this even pretends to be historically accurate- does it? -
ThreeSadTigers — 12 years ago(November 08, 2013 08:48 AM)
- Can't understand Mrs. Linscott and Georgie's motive for killing Short. Were they just psycho? Why kill a young woman who looks like their own daughter?
Elizabeth Short is leaning on the Linscott family for money (effectively blackmailing them). Short wasn't a porn actress; she was brought into this world by her roommate, effectively as an outsider. As such, she's disgusted and degraded by her experiences in the film. She leans on the Linscott family to keep her quiet since making and distributing porn was illegal and would have tarnished the family's reputation if it got out, so Mr. Linscott arranges for her to go on a date with Georgie, as a favour, which she'll be well paid for.
It's never clear if Mr. Linscott intends for Short to be murdered by Georgie or if it was just an effort to scare her enough that she wouldn't be tempted to blackmail him again.
Georgie is obsessed with Short because she looks like Madeleine who in turn looks like a young version of her own mother, Ramona. His secret attraction to Madeleine is based on his past relationship with Ramona, his former lover. Because Ramona is still in-love with Georgie, she's enraged by his attraction to Short as surrogate for Madeleine, and since she can't exact revenge on her own daughter, takes it out on the 'disposable' Short.
When she disfigures Short, the implication is that she's disfiguring Madeleine (by-proxy) but it's also part of her (and Georgie's) obsession with death and the destruction of beautiful things. Georgie was left physically and psychologically disfigured in an accident arranged by Mr. Linscott (with the intention of murdering Georgie) and this seems to have also damaged Ramona, psychologically if not physically.
- Can't understand Mrs. Linscott and Georgie's motive for killing Short. Were they just psycho? Why kill a young woman who looks like their own daughter?
-
qfal — 14 years ago(August 23, 2011 09:05 PM)
Go to the following link to read a detailed synopsis of the BOOK. It is even more complicated than the movie, and has major differences, but will help you understand the movie.
http://www.wikisummaries.org/The_Black_Dahlia -
Doctor_Mabuse1 — 14 years ago(September 23, 2011 06:26 AM)
Understand this: Brian De Palma's 3-hour director's cut, highly praised by original novelist James Ellroy, was studio-slashed by an entire HOUR. The result was to render a complex story nearly incomprehensible.
Doctor Mabuse, Evil Genius, King of Crime -
pmbeatlefan — 13 years ago(April 03, 2013 09:07 AM)
Suggestion for those who are having issues with this - or any other movie - try watching with closed caption on. You'd be surprised how many things get said in a movie that you never even know someone is speaking.
That being said - I am surprised so many people found this movie incomprehensible. I'm not passing judgement on anyone for it though. Yes, it is complicated, and I did rewind two scenes while watching the first time to be sure I completely understood what had happened, but I was not baffled by it. You don't realize until the end how all these little pieces are tied together and it happens so quickly that if you haven't paid close attention and absorbed all the finer details it's hard to wind it all up.
Yup - the motive for the murder of Elizabeth Short is pretty weak IMO. But, as the real murder has never been solved, I guess the author's idea is as good as anyone's.
I agree with another poster that Hilary Swank was woefully miscast. She is a great actress - but no femme fatal - not with her looks. ugh!
Someone did finally give a good synopsis of this movie in this thread - so keep going til you get there, it's not all just people putting down the movie, author, director, each other etc.
I don't think this is a bad movie by any means. I'd much rather a movie like this that requires me to pay attention and think than some action/cgi packed nonsense, or worse - so (so-called) comedy that's full of nothing but bodily function and gross out humor and gratuitous nudity. Why do you think studios feel they have to cut the length down on films like this? Because they don't think the average movie viewer will want to watch something not filled with stunning visual effects or full frontal nudity for more than 2 hours. -
!!!deleted!!! (44199305) — 11 years ago(March 29, 2015 03:20 AM)
I read both The Black Dahlia and LA Confidential. LA Confidential is a much better movie because it's much less convoluted than the book.
The Black Dahlia tried too hard to be faithful to the book. It would have been impossible to stay faithful to the story AND make a movie that lasted less than 2 hours.
I also remember watching this flick at the dollar movie. The theatre was nearly empty. It was me and a bunch of retirees. It took a couple of sittings for me to understand all of what was going on, since there were so many different things happening at once.
