User Score
3.0 out of 10

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 125 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 27 out of 125
  2. Negative: 83 out of 125

Review this movie

  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. EllieJ.
    Sep 17, 2006
    0
    A terrible film. The dialogues were convoluted and hard to understand. The characters weren't well established and the story just isn't believable. "The Black Dahlia" was a waste time.
  2. MichaelL.
    Sep 18, 2006
    1
    Pure, unadulterated crap. Too many disperate elements, too much extraneous material that has nothing to do with the matters at hand. A lush, overproduced excuse for DePalma to indulge in his usual bra and panties peep-show antics. Can this man make a film without black lace and garters? The Black Dahlia case is interesting enough without the clap-trap fictionalization added in this confused, muddled mess. And that ending! WHAT? Props to Fiona Shaw for the only watchable scene in the film. Johansen and Hartnett are good enough, and Swank is...well...swanky. You want to see a clever, campy, muder and mayhem film set in old Hollywood? Rent 1971s "What's The Matter With Helen?" That wacky tale, at least, makes sense. Expand
  3. MarkJ.
    Jan 2, 2007
    1
    The Black Dahlia is frought by weakly written characters, who seem to switch roles throughout the film almost as often as the seemingly confused plot. The film switches from comic book cinematography to thriller to comedy within the space of an hour all attempting to justify the limited array of characters who occupy each space. By the end I just didn't care, its pointless, its boring, its a really disappointing film. Expand
  4. redlight
    Jun 5, 2007
    5
    the following is from empire's review of the film, which i agree with: "De Palma is interested not a jot in the feelings of his characters, and thus the denouement which, in a way appropriate for noir, verges on the loopy, is frigid and unsatisfying. It
  5. MovieMan
    Nov 10, 2006
    0
    This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It looks like a 10 year old put it together, hoping to get it shown on his local cable access channel. To call it bad is an injustice to the word - it would have to improve ten-fold in order to qualify for a bad rating. The story in nonexistent, the acting is bad and the production values are terrible. Your time would be better spent re-arranging the wires behind your television. Expand
  6. Shootsy
    Oct 21, 2006
    0
    ...all of a sudden "Mission to Mars" becomes a masterpiece!
  7. ChadShiira
    Oct 2, 2006
    6
    If the performances by Aaron Eckhart and Josh Hartnett actually reflected their pugulist monikers of "Fire" and "Ice" (they're both more like Derek Smalls of Spinal Tap; lukewarm water), "The Black Dahlia" would've not only eluded the k.o., but also the standing eight count as well. It's the performance by Hilary Swank that helps this "Chinatown"-wanna-be off the mat. As the one nicknamed "Fire", we're not aware that Eckhart's character is haunted by Elizabeth Short's murder until Kay (Scarlett Johansson), his wife, tells us. Since Johansson is already made up to look like Kim Novak in "Vertigo", how about a Hitchcockian night of restless sleep for Lee, ala Jimmy Stewart. That hypothetical evocation of film referencing blatancy couldn't be worse than the crazy, crazy, crazy "Sunset Boulevard" homage this usually sure-footed filmmaker concocts late in the film. "The Black Dahlia" gets off to a disastrous start because it pussyfoots around. As the love triangle coalesces, some of us are thinking: Cut to the chase and give us the dead body. Expand
  8. Robertxxxx
    Oct 9, 2006
    2
    The Big Sleep meets Chinatown meets Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
  9. TheHansonBrothers
    Sep 15, 2006
    0
    Unbelievably awful, what in the world happened here. Can't believe this score is above 20.
  10. BillyS.
    Sep 15, 2006
    7
    One thing is certain from the very beginning of The Black Dahlia- you're watching a Brian DePalma film. It's all here, the long sweeping tracking shots, the artsy angles, the buiding cresendo of the score, and a very intriguing story that slowly is revealed after about 25 unnessasary tangents and detours. The acting is pretty much standard considering everybody seems to have split personalities and who you see isn't really who you see. There is just to much to take in and the film goes all over the place getting there, but getting there with Vilmos Zsigmond's cinematography and Dante Ferretti's production design make all those little sidetracks all the more enjoyable and worth the price of a ticket. Expand
  11. SSshanks
    Sep 15, 2006
    2
    Ugh. A bunch of disjointed scenes that never really add up to anything. Nice looking though.
  12. IanB.
    Sep 15, 2006
    2
    Exceptional set design and lighting are lost in a generic film noir whose almost incidental ties to the Elizabeth Short story serve mainly as props for scenes of sex and violence. The writing reeks ('nuff said). Mia Kirshner and Scarlett Johansson glimmer in their roles, Josh Hartnett, well, tries his cardboard best, but Hilary Swank, John Kavanagh and Fiona Shaw vie for the real acting raspberries as a (way) dysfunctional family with the worst accents since Inspector Clouseau. If you really like boxing or feel deep in your heart that Elizabeth Short deserved every blow and cut she got, you may like this film, but if you prefer real film noir, see 'Hollywoodland'. Expand
  13. FrankP.
    Sep 16, 2006
    2
    Bad. Good for some campy laughs but the direction is a mess. Like high school acting class. And the story is incoherent. The actors try their best but it's clear DePalma was asleep at the wheel.
  14. DaveK.
    Sep 16, 2006
    0
    STATS ON MOVIE: # of people in the theatre on opening day - 45 # of people who left within 45 minutes - 11 # of people snoring next to me - 2 # of people who boo'd it when the credits came - 15 This was an awful movie, each scene is just disjointed and connects with the movie in no way at all. Casted horribly too, Hillary swanks character was pointless, Eckhart was pitiful, and so was Hartnett. Do not waste your weekend time! Expand
  15. RalphieBoy
    Sep 16, 2006
    0
    Let me sum it up for you...zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
  16. Bobbi
    Sep 16, 2006
    5
    I like weird twists and turns and I never read the novel, so the the plot twist was good. However, the movie was poorly scripted and the scenes did not make sense or blend well together.
  17. PaulJ.
    Sep 17, 2006
    3
    Not horrible, but not great (or even good). Low point: Lack of Plot and completely fictitious solving of the crime. High point: cinematography.
  18. GabeW.
    Sep 17, 2006
    1
    A sadly confused noir that needs to provide a scorecard so that a viewer can attempt to figure it out. Aside from a few memorable scenes the film is boring which is extremely sad since de Palma has been often a truly innovative and exciting Diorector. But this one is as stiff as the corpse itself.
  19. PatK.
    Sep 18, 2006
    0
    Started out thinking this movie was taking me some place....but somewhere in the middle, I realized I was totally wrong. Horrible, corny, ending.
  20. GrahamS.
    Sep 24, 2006
    0
    I wanted to like this film, I enjoy Noir, I like many of the actors...but this is by far the worst film I have seen this year...or maybe any year. The only real crime of interest is this overlong -convoluted mess is how to waste this much talent. I think DePalma has made equally bad and derivative films before. The likely comparisons are sure to be Chinatown, and LA Confidential. Robert Townes' script Polanski, and Nicholson are largely untouchable in my eyes. Curtis Hanson's LA confidential - was spellbinding- this film is something entirely different. When you see an old photo faded with years, most people look for something of interest. With no real connection to the scandal and a difficult script this is the equivalent of a dull photo of 40's wallpaper. How bad must a film be when the highlights are the barn door and the kitchen table- Avoid this mess!!! I am trying to think what I have seen that is worse- A least SHOWGIRLS was so bad it was laughable, DePalma has taken us to new depths. Expand
  21. Bobbie
    Sep 26, 2006
    0
    Possibly the worst adaption of a book ever. They took a great book and turned it into trash. Avoid.
  22. GuyS
    Jan 4, 2007
    1
    I can't think of a movie that bored me more than this. Although I haven't yet read the book by the occasionally excellent James Ellroy -- and after seeing this bowl of tripe, it's doubtful I will -- I expected that the movie would at least hit some of the author's signature noir notes. This was a caricature of the genre, with cardboard characters and an unfocused, meandering script. If the flick bears even a slight resemblance to the book, Ellroy should give back his advance. Expand
  23. VS.D.
    Feb 11, 2007
    0
    So awful I couldn't even make it thru it. I'm a fan of the book and when I heard David Fincher was directing, I was delighted. Then I heard he dropped out and De Palma was taking over. Then I wept. De Palma is such a dreadful director--no subtlety, no understanding of telling the story with the cut, no understanding of plot and story. I couldn't think of a worse director for this material (though Joel Schumacher would be a close second). Dreadful, dreadful stuff. Expand
  24. ElliotP.
    Feb 4, 2007
    2
    When you get the feeling 1/2 way through this movie that cleaning your bathroom would be more fun than this film - trust your instinct. I wish I had.
  25. GeorgeL.
    Feb 9, 2007
    8
    If you love 40's americana , you will love this movie. Not for everyone.
  26. JamesA.
    Jul 5, 2007
    0
    This movie would be worse than our Home Video. Dont waste time!!
  27. TimR.
    Jul 7, 2007
    9
    I seemed to be the only person giving this a good review. I loved this film for the vintage noir feel it had to it and i thought it to be well acted and engaging. However i thought the ending left something to be desired and ultimately lacked the strength the rest of the movie had. In any case i enjoyed it.
  28. ES
    Oct 15, 2006
    10
    A brave bit of storytelling, brazenly un-PC, my favorite of the recent rash of pulp movies. Also lovely to see real cinematic ability on display here -- even Scorsese's latest movie is obviously a product of the MTV generation, while this movie could have been made during the Golden Age of cinema. Standouts are Aaron Eckhart, whose '40s throwback performance layered with '90s indie naturalism stole the show, and William Finley's small but very important role was a pleasant surprise. It was a real pleasure to see the Phantom of the Paradise himself onscreen again. I'll agree with most that Hartnett and Johansson very nearly ruined this film's chances, but the movie is too solid overall to be discounted. See it in a theater for the full effect! Expand
  29. BrunoP.
    Oct 16, 2006
    4
    Boring.
  30. GerrickC
    Oct 25, 2006
    3
    Didn't I hear someone say that this movie is from the director of Scarface? That's BS and anyone who sees this movie will know it.
Metascore

Mixed or average reviews - based on 35 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 9 out of 35
  2. Negative: 5 out of 35
  1. The second half feels heavy and unfulfilled, potential greatness reduced to a good movie plagued with problems.
  2. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    60
    "Chinatown" it ain't, not in any department. On its own level, however, new pic generates a reasonable degree of intrigue.
  3. 40
    The picture is a kind of fattened goose that's been stuffed with goose-liver pâté. It's overrich and fundamentally unsatisfying.