Members Shawn Posted September 17, 2006 Members Share Posted September 17, 2006 I saw it last night and I must say that althought it was a good movie, it wasn't what I thought it would be. It had a lot of potential that I thought it didn't live up to. The best part of the movie? Hilary Swank as Madeline, which although it would seem biased to like her considering my love of Hilary, is obvious to those who have seen it. Josh Hartnett and Scarlett Johanssen are horribly miscast and it brings down the movie. Mia Kirshner is great in what scenes she appears in, but she doesn't appear in enough. Brian De Palma does a good job with what he has. Worth seeing in the movie, and, unless you're a Hilary or Brian fan, not worth buying it when its released on DVD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DaysGal Posted September 17, 2006 Members Share Posted September 17, 2006 I want to see this movie mainly because of Hilary Swank. But, after reading several reviews, it doesn't seem like it would be worth paying to see. Thanks for your comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Keith Posted September 17, 2006 Members Share Posted September 17, 2006 I loved this movie, but it's definitely something you need to watch a few times for the plot to sink in. Fiona Shaw was magnificient. The best part of Josh Hartnett's performance was his ass. One thing a friend pointed out - this film is full of eye candy for the majority of the audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Chris B Posted September 17, 2006 Members Share Posted September 17, 2006 I haven;t seen it yet, but Brian DePalma is one of my favorite directors. Even his worst films (Body Double anyone?) are worth watching because of his great direction. This film looks like it has good performances as well, so it should do okay with the weak script. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bellcurve Posted September 17, 2006 Members Share Posted September 17, 2006 This film tries WAAAAAY too hard to be film noir and failed on several levels. BTW, I am just using what I've learned about noir in a film class I had last summer, not a vast collection of movies that I've seen. So don't sue me. 1) Josh Hartnett should not have been casted as the lead in this movie, if I was expected to take this seriously. He fails to deliver that rich, smoky noir type look, voice, and feel. I was just completely annoyed with him by the end of the movie. On the other hand, I think the casting for Scarlett Johannson and Hilary Swank were INSPIRED. Loved them in this movie. Loved that they adopted that 40's-style diction and tone of speaking. 2) Hated the sets and exteriors in the movie. I didn't even remember until half-way through the movie that Swank said the movie was shot in Bulgaria. Well, I can tell it WASN'T 40's LA, that's for damn sure. We studied the movie "Bladerunner" and I found out that the sets from that movie were actually sets for NYC-style movies. And even though I still think "Bladerunner" is one of the worst films ever, I STILL think it captured more LA spirit in it than "Black Dahlia" did. 3) Way too much sex. A little bit of sex in a movie never hurts, but it was almost to the point of realizing they added it in just so they could skimp on actual dialogue and plot details. I recommend seeing this one on DVD. It's worth one look, but that's pretty much it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members WTGH Posted September 17, 2006 Members Share Posted September 17, 2006 What a shame. The previews looked good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mitchapalooza Posted September 23, 2006 Members Share Posted September 23, 2006 Wow what a dissapointment. I saw this movie last night with some friends and after 30 mins we had regretted our decision to watch this instead of Jackass 2 I found it to be very slow and very boring. Josh Hartnett was horribly miscast and as a result that took away from the movie BIG TIME. The only plus side to this movie is the eye candy, Hilary Swank and all scenes involving Madeline's family & of course Mia Kirshner (sp). Aaron Eckhart was also not too bad and although I love Scarlett, she really had nothing much to do. Hartnett was not awful, but definetly not ready to headline this type of film. Wait for the DVD...don't waste ur money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sugarland Posted October 2, 2006 Members Share Posted October 2, 2006 I really liked the movie, and didn't feel it was trying to hard to be "noir" but I do think they were trying too hard to re-introduce the genre into mainstream Hollywood through modern day "starlets"; Harnett was miscast (as already said) and so was Johannson and I'd even venture to say the same of Swank (even though she is incredibly talented, she just somehow didn't fit the role). I actually thought one of the best performances was from the actress who portrayed Elizabeth Short. Loved the look and feel - the sets were some of the best I've seen in a long time. The plot was confusing at times, but I think that's partly due to the ennunciation (or lack thereof) in the voiceovers. I did like the script and I actually thought it wasn't nearly as gruesome or sexual as it could have been, which was refreshing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.