I think anyone who is a fan of the novel or James Ellroy would say this is a pretty tepid and whitewashed version. All the actors were uniformly bad or pointless. The direction was confusing. It almost seemed like De Plama couldn’t get out of his own way and be true to the source material making a really good and intense and very dark novel into a movie of the week.
While I am not a huge fan of De Palma I do like Dressed to Kill and Sisters and most of his 70’s stuff.
If it were only THAT De Palama that made the movie rather than this later one
Still I think De Palama is too much of a formalist and detached to do Ellroy justice. Particularly a novel as personal this.
Ellroy needs a modern day Sam Fuller IMHO.
I would kill to see a Sam Fuller adaptation of White Jazz. :)
Tom: Coming from somebody who’s never read the novel, I don’t/can’t really share those concerns. I have the same reaction to the arguments made by fans of the Watchmen graphic novel … I never read the graphic novel, and the movie actually seemed quite good to me. I guess what I’m trying to say is that these issues of consistency are not universal concerns that one can pick up just watching the movie alone. And I’m not really one to think that a movie adaptation must be as much like the source material as possible. That’s not really my criterion for whether or not an adaptation succeeds or not.
That said, I didn’t find all the acting “unformly bad or pointless.” I thought Scarlett Johansson’s performance was the low point of the film, while most of the other actors gave mixed to great performances (though the “great” performances tended to be reserved for supporting cast).
I thought that the intertwining plots were confusing, but not the actual direction of the picture. The overall editing was something that I felt was pretty much spot-on. Some of the cut sequences are actually pretty meticulous and brilliant (I’m thinking specifically of the scene near the beginning where they get into a shooting match with the pimp).
I’m not trying to say it’s a great movie or anything. I just think it gets kind of a bum rap. The confusion of the narrative is actually something I liked, whether it was intentional or not (I have a hard time believing it wasn’t, since a director would basically need to have not read the script in order to be unaware of what he was getting into in that regard). This is one of those movies, also, that really shines in a theater viewing. And I have to imagine that, if you’ve read the book, and therefore already know what’s going to happen, that must diminish the movie’s effects somewhat.
Well I agree with you that a film does not have to be faithful to the novel source.
Its really a purely personal and subjective issue with me when it comes to this film because I really loved the novel and James Ellroy and have many issues with Brian De Palma (alot that I can over look with his early work but his later stuff in the 90’s on makes what I see as his prentiousness and derivativeness harder to ignore).
But as I said this is more of MY issue than the film because I liked the novel so much.
For the record I never read The Watchmen either but felt the movie was close to unwatchable. But seeing who directed I was not surprised as I felt 300 was 90mins I’ll never get back of my life either :)
Anyway back to the original thread, I didn’t expect a great movie but this one was an adaptation of a great messy violent personal exciting dark novel by a once interesting director which turned out to be really boring for me ( a huge sin in art IMHO).
For the record I thought L.A. Confidential was pretty good example of a Hollywood version of a equally dark novel by the same writer that was very good despite cuts made to some of the novel’s more unsavory aspects.
What it ulitmately comes down to is that I expected more of both director and source material and that is more my prejudices and faults than that of the film I guess.
This film isn’t nearly as bad as its reputation would have you believe. I wrote a grammatically error-ridden longish review about the film ages ago.
It tickles me that this film was shot at The Nu Boyana Film Studios in Sofia on the Vitosha Mountainside studio set, just up the road from me, with production design by Dante Ferretti http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0274721/ … so I’m really intrigued to finally see the film.
I spoke to the Studio CEO, former production designer David Varod and he refers to this film as being representative of the excellent ‘production value’ attainable at the studio facilities here in Bulgaria. Peter Weir also recently shot his latest film The Way Back here.
I have a hard time with the film partly because I saw a very moving documentary about the same subject with the real detectives when I wa younger and the DePalma film felt way too slick to me. I can’t remember what the doc was called but it was very powerful.
“Am I the only person who liked this movie?”
Not even De Palma likes it.
Tom Kirk: If you’re interested in seeing it particularly for the production design and other visual aspects, don’t delay. One thing the critics all pretty much agree on is that the movie looks absolutely incredible. In addition to Dante Ferretti on production design, it also features Vilmos Zsigmond as cinematographer.
Francisco: Not even De Palma likes it.
Good for him.
Although I am a HUGE DePalma head this film just does not make. Great production design and cinematography (by two of the best).
The novel is terrible and the screenplay keeps way too much it. I thought Josh Hartnet was excellent but Hilary Swank is terrible (in a terrible role) and Fiona Shaw is even worse.
The POV the first time Bucky enters the Lindscott home is laughable. Is DePalma referancing The Lady in the Lake (1947)?
And the floorshow at the lesbian bar is a joke.
The final shot is classic DePalma however and one of the few redeeming moments in the picture.
How he managed to follow up The Black Dahlia with an even worse movie, Redacted, is beyond me.
Mediocrity at is best. Activate thumbs-sideways.
Unfortuantely empty references to other better films does not a good movie make. In a nutshell that pretty much encapsulates the work of DePalma.
DePalma is a interesting director to discover whne you are 14/15 years old as a gateway to other better directors. While I have a speical place in my heart for Dressed to Kill and Carrie and Sisiters and Body Double (the first DePalma film I saw in the theaters) my 40 year old head has a hard time taking him seriously.
Almost all his work was been emtpy genuflecting before Hitchcock and other better directors. To just reference a great scene in a movie with no point is something I have no paitence with any longer.
I really like the novel and i guess that is why I can’t tolerate the film very much. Scarlett Johansen is not a good or even medicore actress by any definition. And the less said about Aaron Eckhart and Josh Harnett, the better. Talk about wooden and pointless. here we have a double shot. But every hack director gets the leading stars they deserve.
I know I am being harsh but the novel was a passionate dark over the top uber hard boiled insane palying fast and losse with history while still being true to the time examination of a mother’s death by one crazy amazing son of a bitch writer.
While I don’t look at source material as scared text and feel a movie does NOT have to be true t its source at all, I feel Ellroy desrved a better director.
At the very least the DePlama of Dressed to Kill…..
my pointless 2 cents
Tom Kern: Once again, it seems like the only substantial part of your critique has to do with just how wrong De Palma got the book. These “empty references” to other filmmakers that you speak of, as a criticism, itself feels kind of empty. I’ve never been a big De Palma fan, but I can’t help but feel the special vitriol you seem to have for him is a bit over the top.
> Am I the only person who liked this movie?
no, it’s got problems only because of the audience’s expectations. look at it with open mind, forget about what’s modern and cool in cinema today. and you’ll see an honest, if a little too bitter noir about a sad, dark place of the soul. the broken dreams might be a cliché, but de palma improves its urgency by adding his own voice – literally!
btw i read the novel and my favourite director is brian de palma
I must say I have never been a fan of Brian De Palma. As far as I’m
concerned the closest he has ever come to a masterpiece was Dressed to
Kill, and as with all his films, it eventually drowns in its style.
I picked The Black Dahlia up as a five dollar DVD thinking it might be
of interest. I was unaware De Palma had been at the helm but what a
hoot. I rate this film higher than it deserves for its pure comic
value. This is a film that is so off that it’s good. More opera than
noir this would make a great stage musical. The characters are so over
the top. Brian De Palma should not have translated the book into a noir
film if he meant this to be taken seriously. But this was the time of
noir revivals and I guess he felt obliged.
If one considers L.A. Confidential to be a masterpiece and a great
interpretation of its source material as well as liking their film noir
to be serious and dark; don’t bother with this movie. Curtis Hanson did
create a great film with L.A. Confidential, though the one thing I
object to with many of the critiques I have read of De Palma’s film is
its confusing plot. L.A. Confidential has to be the most convoluted,
confusing film I have ever seen. Any confusion in Dahlia’s plot pales
in comparison.
On the other hand, with a little imagination a viewer can transcend the
film’s intentions and amuse themselves with the comic-book grandeur of
this piece. All that is missing is Batman and a few musical numbers. 3
1/2 out of 5.
I would give The Black Dahlia 1/5. This movie fails at everything it sets out to do. The mood is wrong. The film is a mistery but there is no mistery. The acting is terrible. The premise was interesting but the execution was a disaster.
Just saw the film and I have to agree that it doesn’t really do anything right. As mystery, neo-noir, “Chinatown” homage, or any other category you want to place it in, it is lifeless. The only thing I liked about it was the shot of the raven flying down next to Short’s disfigured head. But when it was repeated as the closing shot it felt like simply a pathetic raping of the only half-decent visual expression in the film. However, one of the few funny things is the constant mispronunciation of Harnett’s character’s name as “Black-heart”. “Is that German?”
Nice review by the way, Kasman. You really do like to celebrate those imperfect mainstream Hollywood movies.
The screentest sections of the film are really tremendous (Kirshner deserves a lot of acclaim for her work in this film), and the dinner scene in BLACK DAHLIA is pure gold.
I really enjoyed the first hour of the film but felt the second hour when off the rails quite a bit. That said I Depalma and I wish Universal would double dip or just give Criterion the rights based on this info:
Brian De Palma’s initial cut ran at roughly three hours and was a faithful adaptation of the book, with more time dedicated to Bucky’s psychological breakdown during the investigation and his obsession with avenging the Dahlia. James Ellroy was shown a print of this version and wrote an essay praising it; entitled “The Hillikers,” it was published in re-issued prints of the novel which were released before the film premiered. In the interim between Ellroy’s having seen the director’s cut and the publication of his essay, the film was significantly edited. After seeing the theatrical cut, Ellroy refused to comment on it, except to tell the Seattle Post-Intelligencer “Look, you’re not going to get me to say anything negative about the movie, so you might as well give up.”
from imdb
bolo tie
Am I the only person who liked this movie?
I think its main liability is Scarlett Johansson. She’s not a bad actress or anything, but her limited range is made pretty evident in this film. Her look is just right, but her delivery is canned, or rather feels like an attempt at canned speech, like she’s trying to do a parody but not quite succeeding.
Otherwise, I don’t see a whole hell of a lot to dislike about the film. Sure, it meanders, and there are about a thousand threads hanging throughout the thing, such that it’s often difficult to really get a handle on what’s happening at any given time. But at the same time, this is what made the movie into a fun theater experience, that it was so jam-packed with intrigue, and that it all looked so brilliant from a visual perspective (and sounded brilliant, by the way … the music for this film, and the audio editing itself, is absolutely stunning).
I think it presented one of those odd circumstances, where even the good film critics, the ones with heads on their shoulders, panned it for not being comprehensible enough, for not being packaged enough, when they routinely bash movies for being precisely those things.
Any other takers?