People..
-
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! -
Skutter-2 — 11 years ago(September 20, 2014 12:07 AM)
Yeah, 5.5 is too high. A convoluted, laughable, turgid mess of a movie with a confused plot, hammy and wooden acting, ridiculous melodrama and full of simply bad storytelling. It seems to be aiming to be a serious modern noir like
LA Confidential
or
China Town
but has all the subtlety of
Sin City
, with little of the entertainment value (intentional entertainment value anyway). -
pgbrush — 16 years ago(March 26, 2010 08:06 PM)
Please. This is De Palma trying to film Chinatown + LA Confidential at the same time and failing badly.
It's not Noir - it's a parody of Noir. Cinematography? The movie could have been filmed by Michelangelo using a camera built by Jesus and it still would have a badly executed story using awkward actors and edited by a person who never read the source material.
You know a movie is a failure when the plot "twist" is simply, "The person who did it is the least likely person in the movie to have done it. We have illustrated this point by giving that person almost no character development at all and less than two minutes of screen time. You watched two hours of a movie and were left with absolutely no catharsis or resolution at all."
Carlito's Way is the last genuine De Palma movie to have been made. Everything since has been either painful, laughable or boring.
www.pantheonoutcast.com -
denmil7-1 — 15 years ago(May 21, 2010 04:02 PM)
my thoughts are around the middle of everything.It was noir,but not the best of noir.It had a simple twist,but the plot was okay.The cinematography was okay.Acting was okay.Pretty much everything was okay,and that means a 6/10 for me.
It is kind of low though,considering my rates are usually lower than the movie's average rating.
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=43001664 -
dshortt-1 — 14 years ago(June 14, 2011 07:52 PM)
Just watching this on tv now for the first time and I think the current rating (5.6) is "lowish," but about right. No more than a 6 for sure. And I came to IMDb expecting to see an over-rating in the 7-8 range.
I like the female talent in the film, but the male leads are totally wrong. And it doesn't really work for me as a film moir. It has all the noir conventions, but doesn't feel real, authentic; call it an imitation noir, or a "faux-noir."
I read the book a few years ago and loved it. By comparisoin, the movie seems almost incomprehensible. Mind you i missed the first half-hour, and kept wondering would it have made more sense had I seen it from the start.
My rating - 5/10. -
Errington_92 — 13 years ago(June 29, 2012 06:18 AM)
I don't understand the negativity for
The Black Dahlia
. Although certain parts of the storyline were predictable overall it is full of intriguing elements. Murder, deceit and manipulation made
The Black Dahlia
a great film to watch as we got a view of a fascinating dark world.
"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not". -
richc4961 — 13 years ago(July 07, 2012 10:40 PM)
I'm Sorry but this is not a good movie. Film Noir is about mystery/suspense and subtlety (at least the best ones) and actually trying to figure out what happened withoug ever knowing all the answers or what will happen. ScarJo having her former boyfriend's initials literally carved into her? C'mon. Does this mean in the Chinatown remake (god forbid) Evelyn Mulray will have an "I love my Daddy" Tattoo. There was nothing for the viewer to figure out.everything was explained with some form of literal exposition (the viewer at the end being told what actually happened by the mother as opposed to Nicholson slowly figuring out (and the viewer) what happened while he is slapping Faye Dunaway), ironic consdering that the case which this based upon was never actually solved.
To each his own but I just watched this moview for first time and wrote another post where I stated DePalma made a deliberate parody of film noir, the torture porn genre and the hollywood establishement. -
Mullah_Omar — 12 years ago(January 28, 2014 08:09 PM)
I can believe the rating. The movie is firmly mediocre, so 5-6 seems right for that.
Comparing this with the Karate Kid is also ill-advised. KK stacks up as a solid kid's film even today. BD is pretty weak compared to other noir/mystery films. BD might be shot better than KK and have a better cast, but the result is what matters - and the result is that KK has become iconic and beloved, whereas I'll bet most people who saw BD can't remember much of it. -
SausagePourVous — 11 years ago(September 03, 2014 06:38 AM)
Well.comparing the Karate kid and TBD seems very random and nonsensical,since they have exactly NOTHING in common,from genre to when they were made to directors or the time period they are placed in. Neithr is the rating like comparing a 5.2 to a 7.6.
But acting? Which film was Oscarnominated of these two for best Supporting actor? That is correct,The karate kid.
The black Dahlia got a nom for cinematography and deservedly so,I would also have supported an art direction nombut that is ALL it has going for it.
Eckhart embarrasses himself here,he sure as hell isnt helped by the script who just turns him into a teeth-grinding,very agressive junkie in 4 seconds. His arc is so pointless and convoluted and since it ties in with the rest of the story,by the time we get to sum things up,the whole story becomes even way more convoluted(And amazingly,since so repetitive,a plot for simpletons) then it is at this point.
Cause that is what this is;A hollow,goodlooking,derivative,very poor attempt at film noir. So much exposition,every scene,every name will mean something,from Eckharts openng random shooting of a thug;it was so painfully obvious.
There is nothing special"to understand." WHY would Hilary Swank even be in this picture if not to have the role she has? This is of course underscored and made too abbundantly clear from the amount of time we spend with this rich,eccentric family. There are NO other suspects.
Dinner after dinner,scene after scene,we just wait for" the revelation",since this basically is the story and no red herring. When mommy goes nuts and explains certain things,while its not helped by Fionas extreme overacting,the explanation for certain elements of the story is so farfetched and convoluted,it doesnt even seem to make sense to her crazy character.
Hartnett,bland,harmless and wannabe noir,Swank as a femme fatale but she looks like the mix of a cute horse and Courtney Cox. Johansson,as so often,just doesnt fit,seeming out of place,readings sound like she gets the dialog through a ear-mic and belonging in another century and film.
Mia Kirshner and John Kavanagh were the only good ones here- Great shame on DePalma for this one and I can Not understand how James Ellroy liked this interpretation of his book but shunned the supremely more ambigous,tenser and better acted(Russell,Gleeson,Rhames) Dark Blue by Ron Shelton. 3.5 for this superficial,messy film that lacks direction,conviction and discipline.
So you understand movies,ey and if one does not like this one,it means one does not understand it? Awesome mentality there. -
jbhartley14 — 11 years ago(February 08, 2015 08:45 PM)
I like the genre. I understood the story. I am familiar with James Ellroys' work. I like most of the actors, I saw it at the theater when it came out with great expectation. It put my ass to sleep. I waited a while and rented the dvd..alas. I saw it listed on cable and tried again, STILL wanting desperately to connect..Sigh. Aside from Scarlett who was magnificent in 50's costuming, the whole thing is a mess to me. Seems as though the only cinematic nod to film noir was to make everyone wear a hat and chain smoke non-filter cigarettes. Jeez. It gets a 5 from me and not for LACK OF TRYING!
