DePalmas Black Dahlia (1 Viewer)

[Kevin M]

Having someone's body ripped limb from limb is disney?

 

[Nathan V]

Mission to Mars is PG.

FYI, Black Dahlia is rated "R for strong violence, some grisly images, sexual content and language."

Regards,
Nathan

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Are you talking about Scarface or something else? You never see anything in the chainsaw scene, except for reaction shots.

 

[ThomasC]

Touchstone, not Disney. I know Touchstone is owned by Disney, but it's like saying Warner Brothers instead of New Line.

 

[Kevin M]

Sorry, let me rephrase.......someone having their body ripped limb from limb is subtle?

 

[JonZ]

Reviews have been terrible.

How can material like this be described as "campy"?

Rotten Tomatoes is at 48%. Im waiting on James Bs review at the moment.

 

[Jefferson Morris]

A pity, if the reviews are to be believed. I've never read the book, but I was looking forward to this one. Seems like I haven't been to the movies in ages, and the reason is always the same - lackluster reviews of whatever film I was moderately excited about.

--Jefferson Morris

 

[Scott Simonian]

Must be much more subtle than any f-bomb or titty flash...that kind of content gives an instant "R" rating. *sarcasm off*

Ugh...

 

[Nathan V]

Regardless of reviews, Variety says tracking is excellent.

Regards,
Nathan

 

[TravisR]

I may be turned on to a movie by good word of mouth or critical praise but I don't avoid a movie that I think I would like due to bad word of mouth or critical panning either. In other words, I'm still going to catch it but my expectations are lowered.

 

[Andy Sheets]

It's always hard to make anything of reviews of DePalma's work because he's such a polarizing director and likes to play and do goofy things in his films. But he's usually interesting so I'll probably see this one.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I wouldn't buy into the reviews too much if you enjoy DePalma's work. A lot of the reviews I've read attacked all the style and I think the "more style than substance" could fit many DePalma movies so I'm not sure why the critics are attacking the style here so much.

My girlfriend and I just got back from seeing the film and we both enjoyed it. I left the theater somewhat disappointed because I had hoped this would return DePalma to his top-notch style, which it doesn't but this was still a good film. The visual style of the film was brilliant and it really captured the look and feel of the 1940's film noir. The tricky camera shots were really distracting at the start of the film but they weren't used too much after that. It does seem DePalma spends more time dealing with the tech stuff over the acting, which is another mild negative. I thought Eckhart and Hartnett should have switched roles. Hartnett was good but he just wasn't strong enough to carry the film and his narration wasn't that good either. I was also disappointed with Scarlett Johansson but she wasn't given too much to do. Hilary Swank was good as usual.

I know the detective stuff and the "ending" to the murder was all made up but I think they could have came up with something better. The final thirty minutes get quite confusing and the ending let me down because it was just so far fetched at times while at other times it seems the screenplay as rushing things to get the film over with. Being a fan of silent cinema, I enjoyed various Hollywood talk but I'm sure fans on one silent legend will be upset over how this guy is shown in the film. I haven't read the book this fake stuff is based on but The Man Who Laughs segments were a nice touch (but pulled towards the 'yeah right').

Overall, I think most DePalma fans will enjoy this but don't expect one of his classics. I'd give it a :star::star::star: out of four.

 

[Sam Favate]

I thought it was almost a parody of film noir. Many of the characters and the scenes are just too much, including a waaaay-over-the-top scene in which a dining room table is cleared for love-making. Groan.

I like Scarlett Johanssen as an actress, but not in this. She just wasn't very good. I never believed in her character or the things she did. Josh Hartnett never did much for me either -- he seems too young to be carrying a movie like this. I felt like I was watching Dean from the Gilmore Girls.

Still, it was not without merit. The long shot that begins in the street and tracks over the building to the field behind it (where the body is) is great. And there are other nice touches as well.

 

[Jefferson Morris]

I do enjoy DePalma, and I sometimes disagree with the general tenor of reviews. This is certainly a rental for me, but I'm still on the fence about a theatrical visit.

--Jefferson Morris

 

[Michael Elliott]

Agree on both parts. I've only seen Scarlet in the two Woody Allen films but I thought she was great in both. I think her character could have been cut out of this film because she really doesn't add anything. As for Hartnett, when you think a great film noir you think Mitchum, Douglas, Nicholson, Garfield and a few others. Hartnett just wasn't strong enough to carry the film but I'm really not sure which young actor they could have gotten to do the film. Johnny Depp might be able to do a noir and pull it off.

 

[TravisR]

I liked everything in this movie until the last 30 minutes or so. The ending is pretty much the same as the novel but the biggest difference is that the twists and turns work in the novel and they don't in the movie.

 

[Jeremiah]

I thought it was Jeff Bridges. lol.

I didn't like the movie, thought it was going to be all about the murder and investigation.

 

[Robert Crawford]

The film was nice to watch visually, but overall it was a mess. Also, I didn't care for some of the performances.





Crawdaddy

 

[Justin_S]

I saw this last night and have to say I really enjoyed it. This is a step down though, as I'm one of the seemingly few who thought he made a triumphant return to form with his prior film, Femme Fatale.

Visually, this is one of De Palma's most amazing films. It's almost like you're watching the film not through a cinema screen, but through the frame of an exquisite painting. He perfectly captures the noir atmosphere, even with such vivid colors, something noir isn't typically known for. Either way, this is a film best seen in a quality theater.

For the most part, the acting is pretty good. I'm not one of the many Josh Hartnett haters out there, as I've quite enjoyed his presence in a few past films. I wasn't sure how well he'd fit into the part of a noirish detective, but after seeing the film, I think he was believable in the role. I agree that his narration isn't great, but I think he did well with the conflicted nature of his character. As his emotionally unbalanced partner, Aaron Eckhart really impressed me. He nailed the obssessive torment of "Mr. Fire". I loved his outburst during the stag film screening.

Less fitting for the film is Scarlett Johanssen, who comes off as a little awkward in her role. She has impressed me in other films like Match Point, but here, she's the weak link. Much is made of Scarlett's beauty, but personally, I would take Hilary Swank and/or especially Mia Kirshner over her any day. Speaking of Swank and Kirshner, they are both excellent here. I've read some reviews criticizing Swank's ability to play a femme fatale. Please. She's one of the film's main strengths. And Kirshner? She plays the doomed Ms. Short with mysterious aura and a vulnerability that is heartbreaking, both of which are conveyed through her expressive, hypnotic eyes. I really felt for her, especially during her participation in the stag film.

As usual with De Palma, the film isn't completely serious either. There are several odes to his prior films, as well as moments of camp and bizarre comedy. The scene where Hartnett meets Swank's family is particularly of note, and got several laughs out of the audience. There's also some underlying criticism of Hollywood, and of course, there are some thrilling setpieces. My personal favorite scene of the film is the scene where Lee and Tilden fall to their doom.
The way that scene is shot is just stunning, and the splattering of Tilden's face on the fountain was one hell of a shock (especially to the girl next to me, hehe).

Now, I did have a major problem with the film. The multiple reveals in the last section just don't work very well. The way they're done makes them seem tacked on and even absurd. I don't know what happened here, but the film really suffers for it.

I do wish the last several minutes had been better handled, but the film up until that point makes this worth seeing.

 

[mattCR]

Glad others here seem to think what I was thinking. I was psyched up for this. I left scratching my head and thinking about what kind of film this could have been. The look of the flm was interesting, but the story itself was a disaster. I just didn't get a feeling of any real tone to the film, or that it was trying to say anything. It seemed devoid of anything that would involve the audience.