People..
-
tommygunfeth — 17 years ago(January 12, 2009 01:44 AM)
I'm sorry but I have to disagree. I thought Brian DePalma did a wonderful job directing this.
And I also think Hartnett was just perfect.. He might've been young, but he played it out perfectly. And his voice fits perfectly aswell.
The role he played reminded me of his role in Sin City, which I loved (the role.. & the movie of course). -
dalldorfw — 12 years ago(March 29, 2014 12:40 PM)
Not sure what this means.
"lack of understanding. this was a film that was already made in the 90s (think L.A. Confidential)it wouldve took someone to update it. Its still translates well , due to the horrific nature of the crime" -
randyhndrsn — 17 years ago(February 04, 2009 11:47 AM)
The film looks great and the acting is all fine, the thing that ruins this movie and gets it that 5.5 is that is just a mess without any narrative and the editing is terrible.They just put alot of stuff togethor and the plot jumps around too much, this screenplay is in fault here as it needed some serious rewrites that could of saved it.The karate kid actually had structure and a plot handled very well for a movie about kid learning karate, this movie lacks an emotinal attraction to the characters and suffers greatly from how bad the screenplay is.
-
tieman64 — 17 years ago(February 05, 2009 07:44 AM)
Hartnett is a thick-headed dope in the film. He's the opposite of your typical Bogart character. Likewise, Scarlett isn't a femme fatale, she's a battered, abused woman.
I hated this film when I saw it in theatres. I've since seen it numerous times and am convinced it's a masterpiece. How many times have you guys seen it? I think the plot is simply too thick for one viewing. It's a film that requires revisiting.
"Rape is no laughing matter. Unless you're raping a clown." -
Crazyonyou — 17 years ago(February 05, 2009 08:09 AM)
Well said, tieman Hartnett isn't supposed to be the cool tough guy but damaged goods, as much so as Scarlett's character, that's what reluctantly draws them together. The plot is layered (although much is left out from the novel) and the film certainly benefits from repeats viewings.
-
greendayeffect24 — 17 years ago(February 25, 2009 07:22 PM)
Unfortunately, not every person is going to enjoy the same movies others may like watching. I say if you enjoy the movie, then you do and that the others may continue to hold their own opinions on it. I don't want to sound like a jerk and say that their opinions don't matter, but on a demographic level, they do count. And that's vice versa for those who didn't like "The Black Dahlia". Afterall, this is just a website with mixed reviews.
I, however, did enjoy the move, or at least what I woke up to this morning. I wouldn't mind seeing the whole thing though, because it did look like an interesting take on a very notorious unsolved case.
Another movie example would be "Pleasantville". It was different in its own time and yet some people criticized it. I actually thought it was artistic in its own right and held so much meaning. -
-
tommygunfeth — 16 years ago(December 22, 2009 03:25 AM)
People like me, lol. Sorry, but you don't know if I'm like that all the time.
I can understand that this film is probably not a film for the masses.
But it really feels like this rating was based mostly on the fact that people didn't understand it. And because of that I hope that people would watch it again.
Give it a rewatch. -
nicolas28 — 16 years ago(April 26, 2009 11:20 AM)
Ok, just to take a completely random example..
take Karate Kid It has a rating of 6.8 out of 10. ???
Have you seen the acting in Karate Kid?
Have you carefully evaluated the plot/story?
Have you even looked at the cinematography?
Morita was bad actor? He was quite funny, and had a good mix of cinism and black humor, along with the hearted and respected master.
Karate Kid has no plot holes.
The cinematography is bad? or is just average? Or what? Dont see your point here.
Now I want you to take a look at The Black Dahlia
Great acting!! (Heavy emphasis on the exclamation marks!)
Great plot/story!
Great cinematography!
Great dialogue!
Great acting?could be
Grat plot??? WHAT???? Get serious please!!
Grat cinematography..that could be
Great dialogue?.? really?.dont remember any memorable dialogue
And about noir films..this is far from being in that league, not for not be a noir film, but for being in some points CHILDISH in his plot.The first you have to get in a film noir is a huge villain (those who kill, stink, say bad words, hairy balls, and slap their girlfriends, who then help the good guy cos they say they made a mistake, and fall in love for him for being soo good)
Here, the villain is..dont know who..the old crazy wife?..the old husband? their retarded son who wanted to have sex with the victim?..WHO?? -
tommygunfeth — 16 years ago(December 21, 2009 06:53 PM)
Let's face the facts.. The acting in Karate Kid is not good. Come on.. Don't even try it.
I was not reffering to holes in the story. Instead I was looking at the story as a whole: It's the typical hollywood recipe.
The cinematography is just random and bland.
now
The acting in the Black Dahlia was amazing, and thoroughly convincing.
The plot/story was also great, thrilling.. Keeps you on your toes.. It maintains (for me) a nice suspense all the way through.
The dialogue was great.
Just the opening line of it was memorable:
"Mr. Fire versus Mr. Ice. For everything people were making it out to be, you'd think it was our first fight. It wasn't. And it wouldn't be our last."
Noir genre/style, it certianly is within the style. -
Pharaoh Osmosis — 12 years ago(August 09, 2013 07:57 AM)
And about noir films..
How many Films Noir have you actually seen? Because with what follows it reads like you have only seen 'Sin City' and think it is the elephant's ear's of Noir
this is far from being in that league, not for not be a noir film, but for being in some points CHILDISH in his plot.
This is nowhere near the best Noir, I'll give you that, as I'd not think of comparing it to films like 'The Maltese Falcon', 'Out of The Past', 'The Glass Key', 'Double Indemnity', 'White Heat', 'The Big Combo' et cetera. I wouldn't say the plot of this film was childish (it was largely from Elroy's novel after all) but it was a bit too unfocused (though not confusing).
The first you have to get in a film noir is a huge villain
Although Sydney Greenstreet's Kasper Gutman (a figurative and literal "huge villain") was one of the best villains in Film Noir, many (if not most) lack a "huge villain". Where were the huge villains in 'In A Lonely Place', 'D.O.A' or 'Blue Dahlia'? In these films the villain was low key and revealed late.
(those who kill, stink, say bad words, hairy balls, and slap their girlfriends, who then help the good guy cos they say they made a mistake, and fall in love for him for being soo good)
Ah yes, a pattern followed by only a few Films Noir and in some of those aspects only by films that are post-Classic Noir; how many 1940s films have you seen with "bad words"? You'd also more often have a woman pretend to (or fall in love with the hero only to turn out to be a villain. I also can't remember many "hairy balls" in them. The closest think of one film 'The Big Combo' which roughly corresponds to your view of a Noir sans the villain saying "bad words" all the time Mr. Brown was quite cultured.
Here, the villain is..dont know who..the old crazy wife?..the old husband? their retarded son who wanted to have sex with the victim?..WHO??
Yeah I guess it is like in films like 'The Maltese Falcon' which doesn't have one victim or 'Farewell My Lovely' The fact Noir often has multiple villains and even victims could be villains and vice versa. Films Noir are iconic for not being morally black and white, in the same way monochrome is not, the morality is shades of grey and black. It is ambiguous.
This film may have failed as a film and as a Noir but not for the reasons you have stated.
"The game's afoot!" -
super_frog16 — 16 years ago(January 04, 2010 06:12 PM)
Have to agree with the OP about one thingI thought the 5.5 rating was odd, but only because I thought it would have been a lot lower. This is possibly the worst film I have ever seen. I agree the camera work and such was good, but I don't watch films for the camera work, I watch them for the plot. And this movie does not have the slightest hint of a plot! I have no idea what the hell is going on half the time and the other half I was sat wondering why I was watching it.
The dialogue is odd, the scenes jump around all over the place. There's a million characters added which have a minute screen time each, but the names of which we're expected to remember during scenes where somethings happened concerning several of these said characters.
I was watching with two friends and at the end we all said 'what the hell'. Seriously no idea what went on in this film. I have no idea why they burnt the leads partner, nor why there was money under scarlette johansens floor, or why he was digging up the floor in the first place. No idea why said lead punched his partner in the face in that random scene either. Or what the significance of the clown painting was. Don't see the point in that side story of the cowboy manAnd the last half an hour of the film was laughable. Anticlimactic to the maxI could sit and mention a lot of the things I just didn't get. And I'm not a stupid person before someone gets on the defensive and calls me such, I just didn't understand this film at all.
Personal preference, i'm not going to impress my opinion on anyone.
'
The voice says i'm almost out of minutes
'
proud saltgunner! -
tommygunfeth — 16 years ago(February 22, 2010 05:11 AM)
super_frog16 I'm sorry, but you're just another person who didn't understand the film.. and then rated it low because of your incapability to comprehend this artwork of a movie!
I understood it first time around, and loved it!