MovieChat Forums > The Black Dahlia (2006) Discussion > I can NOT believe the rating for this mo...

I can NOT believe the rating for this movie!

posted 16 years ago by tommygunfeth
40 replies | jump to latest

People..
Are you serious??

5.5 out of 10??

My God!

I mean...

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?

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!

Now..
Please don't get me wrong here.. I enjoy Karate Kid and I am fully aware that it's is in a completely different genre.. But this is just to get a perspective on things.

Maybe people don't like this Noir style.. If so.. It's a pity...
You are missing out!

Show the director, the actors and all the people who worked on this movie some respect and give it a higher rating.

And If you don't like it.. Then learn to like it, it's actually possible..

my 2 cents + a quarter...

-Tommetass

[–] kizzsikasbro 16 years ago

Yeah I agree, I was so surprised after watching it, coming on here to give a 7/10 and see that the average was 5.5. I generally, by chance, give ratings that are below the user average vote and I think in this case people voted badly either because they did not understand the movie, or they did not like the genre.

[–] samsan_lee 16 years ago

1. probably wrong director, and I love DePalma, btw. He's much more effective with the gangster/drug dealer/over the top villan or gangster with a heart of gold - Untouchables, Scarface, Carlito's Way

2. probable better director was David Fincher. He specializes in this and wouldve gotten better leads (Christian Bale-Colin Ferrell was a much better duo and hotter leads mightve been Charlize Theron-Angelina Jolie..now thats a Black Dalia cast. Leads were far too young.

3. 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.

4. I loved it, even with all its faults. Watching DePalma's films is like listening to music and his visuals go so well.

[–] Crazyonyou 16 years ago

Interesting you say Fincher would have got better leads; he was set to make this a few years previously with one of the main leads already cast, that was Hartnett who would have been too young then. As it was he about right for Bucky.

Love Josh? Love fanhost!http://forums.fanhost.com/hollywood-stars-123/josh-hartnett-163/

[–] samsan_lee 16 years ago

Good point.

[–] tommygunfeth 16 years ago

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).

[–] garou_down 16 years ago

Hartnett was bland and uninteresting. He's barely a step up from Hayden Christensen.

[–] dalldorfw 11 years ago

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 16 years ago

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 16 years ago

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 16 years ago

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.

[–] Dragoneyed363 16 years ago

I agree, this movie needs a MUCH higher rating!

Cream cheese...

[–] tommygunfeth 16 years ago

hear hear!

[–] greendayeffect24 16 years ago

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.

[–] coolbrett 16 years ago

I can't believe it either! 5.5/10 is being extremely generous. Ahh..some people

If you piss in your pants you can only stay warm for so long

[–] Valerie_Vance 16 years ago

Why do people like you always feel like everybody must agree you? The Karate Kid was a fun movie. The Black Dahlia was all style and no substance.

It's an ordinary high school day. Except that it's not.

[–] tommygunfeth 15 years ago

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

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 15 years ago

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-in-de-Nile 11 years ago

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 15 years ago

Have to agree with the OP about one thing...I 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 man...And the last half an hour of the film was laughable. Anticlimactic to the max...I 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 15 years ago

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!

[–] AlexMorgan13 15 years ago

i would have rated it a 5, i would give it a 6 though because of the great cast... so 5.5 sounds about right..

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dalldorfw 11 years ago

"I watch them for the plot."

Well, there's one problem.

[–] Skutter-2 10 years ago

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).