Why is this bad?
I haven't seen this and I wonder why people think it's so bad. Is it like Zodiac? Because I love Zodiac.
shareI haven't seen this and I wonder why people think it's so bad. Is it like Zodiac? Because I love Zodiac.
shareI personally like it. Granted, the only reason I watched this film was because I heard that one of my favorite stories, The Man Who Laughs by Victor Hugo (and the silent film adaptation starring Conrad Veidt, a favorite film of mine), ties into the story. I was like, "Wow. The Man Who Laughs in a film noir murder mystery. That sounds awesome." and knowing that The Black Dahlia is based on a real-life unsolved murder case makes this fictionalization all the more chilling. So, personally, I'd say check it out. It can get pretty gritty, though, so if you have a low tolerance for that, then avoid it.
I guess why people don't like this film is they feel it doesn't do justice to the James Ellroy novel it's based on and, while as a writer myself I'd normally be the first to say do justice to a source when making it into a movie, in this case, i didn't mind. I went on to read the book and, to be honest, it disappointed me. For a novel titled The Black Dahlia, I expected there to be much more in it about the Black Dahlia, or at least solving her case. Instead, the story in the novel goes off on weird tangents and subplots and really it's more about the detectives and the corruption of the police department at the time. The film focuses more on Elizabeth Short (the Dahlia) and her demise and how it affects the people she knew and the people trying to solve her case. Not to mention that creepily awesome tie-in with The Man Who Laughs.
Nevermore!
I guess why people don't like this film is they feel it doesn't do justice to the James Ellroy novel it's based on and, while as a writer myself I'd normally be the first to say do justice to a source when making it into a movie, in this case, i didn't mind. I went on to read the book and, to be honest, it disappointed me. For a novel titled The Black Dahlia, I expected there to be much more in it about the Black Dahlia, or at least solving her case. Instead, the story in the novel goes off on weird tangents and subplots and really it's more about the detectives and the corruption of the police department at the time.
I'm one of the few people I know that dislikes LA Confidential. I think it's one of the most overhyped films of All-time. It's NOT Bad, per say, just nowhere near the status it's received(Obviously my useless opinion lol)... As for The Black Dahlia, it's the opposite. I don't think it's GREAT, but I think it's much better than the Credit it gets.
shareI'm not all that hot on LA Confidential either I give it an 8/10. They leave out the hats in LA Confidential, it's a glaring WTF omission. Call it the "romance of the fedora" aside from the DeVitos' character Sid Hudgens and James Cromwell's Dudley Smith, fedoras are absent, missing in action. It just doesn't feel quite right, it would be sort of on par with making a Western without cowboy hats, the characters look naked. -1
Ok I can understand somewhat where Hanson is coming from in a commentary he states that he wanted to make a film that didn't feel like a period piece because he was concerned about getting funding, but you could at least have had 1/4 of the cast wear fedoras and one of the leads. The Author James Ellroy on his commentary on the DVD for Crime Wave "Sterling Hayden-- That is my Bud White. That is my Bud White! f--k Russell Crowe in 'L A Confidential.' I mean he was okay, but he's a shrimpy little sh-t Bud White as Bud Whites go. Sterling Hayden is the real deal. Look at this! He's not even acting. Look at that hat!" 'nuff said.
I wasn't all that fond of the cast as a whole either another minus for me. -1
I do think that HBO could probably do a single Ellroy novel as a TV season and that's probably the only way to do justice to the density problem, but I doubt even they would be willing to include the relentless racism which is so much a constant in his novels. HBO's "True Detective" season 2, though, managed to capture (and update to contemporary times) any of the narrative elements of "White Jazz", although reassembled into a different central narrative.
I gave it a 5 because of the subplots. It wanted to be film noir, but it seemed to throw so many angles at you, that the film lost its goal of noir, (just my opinion). And the twist ending still confuses me. Maybe if there had been one central theme explored throughout the film in present time versus flashbacks it would work better for me. As reviewers have stated, it leaves some with more questions. I came to this board looking for answers myself.
If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world
It is nothing like Zodiac; Zodiac is a near-masterpiece, The Black Dahlia is mediocre and forgettable.
I think the two overarching problems most people have with the film are:
1. The screenplay was adapted from a very dense book. That means that of necessity, much was cut out, and much more was condensed, to the point that the film feels rushed (even at over 2 hours), constantly jumping from one plot point to the next without time for any moments to land.
2. Bad casting. I like Josh Hartnett, but he was all wrong for the main role; too much of a nice-guy clean-cut type to pull off the hard-nosed dialog or the character's darker sides. I dislike Scarlett Johansson, and this movie should be exhibit A. Only Aaron Eckhart makes his character work, and he has limited screen time.
NOTHING like Zodiac. And I love Zodiac. Imagine watching Zodiac but instead of the main characters concentrating on the killer there's scene after scene with nothing to do with the killer and more about the dark underworld of San Francisco.
Complete opposites. Zodiac is a masterpiece, as noted above. This..
I haven't read the Ellroy novel so I don't know how much of the turgid and overlong script originated there, but dePalma's leaden direction coupled with a HORRIBLY miscast Josh Hartnett tops the list. The tall, bony but fresh-faced, apple-cheeked, circa-2005 Hartnett is the last actor who could pull off a world-weary hard-boiled detective. Because of his youth, his voice-over narration sounded like it belonged to a genre parody.
Also John Kavanagh's Scottish burr was just plain silly. It was worse than James Doohan's Scotty.
I can at least understand the other criticisms leveled at this film - that is, they're conceivable - but not the ones regarding De Palma's direction as I think his camera is in excellent form here and the film is pretty consistently terrific to look at.
But, yeah, whoever thought it was a good idea to cast Hartnett in this role must have been seriously out to lunch.
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan