|
Showing reviews from 1 to 50 (total: 118)
|
|
 |
Probably Brian De Palma's Best movie ever since ever. This is his best, by far. Mission Impossible: Boring but intense, The Untouchables :Doesn't give the mob enough screen time. But this is almost perfect. The best movie of the year, beats The Deparetd, X-Men 3... Etc.
10/10
5.7.2007 -
gcgolf@ - age: 1-12
Ok watch-- did not compare to the book-- but many movies miss that mark.
6/10
15.4.2007 -
dtmoores@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
Kind of dull. I didn't care very much for the characters, or what was going on.
5/10
7.4.2007 -
fingerwitch@ - age: 13-17
| | | | |
Very predictable, especially the silhouette of the murderess. Hartnett was good, Swank was disappointing. But Mia Kirshner stole the show and saved the movie from being a disaster. Brian De Palma used to make really good movies.
5/10
2.4.2007 -
mjohnz1@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
A stylish thriller, slow at points but the story is intriguing, the violence however brief definitely leaves a mark and is well executed.
7/10
16.2.2007 -
cfh_trendkill@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
This was horrible! So boring, horrible acting, this years worst yet! I stayed for about 1 hour but couldn't stand anymore and walked out. DO NOT SEE!
1/10
29.1.2007 -
amybauer4@ - age: 13-17
My cousin and I attended this movie and soon regreted it, it did NOT catch our attentions and actually, quite literally made us want to sleep and leave...
2/10
17.11.2006 -
baiser_sauvage@ - age: 13-17
The movies was missing continuity and did not flow that well at all. Was expecting twists and turns and received twists and turns, but was rather ho-hum and tedious to sit through. I was quite disappointed with the acting, but as someone mentioned, the female actors did much better than the males. Below average Flick.
5/10
15.11.2006 -
tjacobs@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
I went to see this film because the trailer was intriguing and the cast and director were predominantly 'A' list. Visually the film worked at capturing the gritty intensity of noir pics of the '40s, however the script failed to create characters or a plot that engages. Ultimately nice to look at, but too incoherent and muddled to recommend. All sizzle and precious little steak. The ending which tries to explain the connection of events which have transpired on screen for the past two hours smacks of desperation. It's as if the studio ordered De Palma to include it so the movie would make some kind of narrative sense. Too little, too late.
5/10
1.11.2006 -
dmacpherson12@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
I have a brain and I still did not enjoy this movie. I was surprised it wasn't better considering the impressive cast. I just found the twists and turns to be rather uninteresting and I did not get caught up in the story.
6/10
27.10.2006 -
janeilmay@ - age: 26-35
Silly and boring and choppy. It is a good thing Josh Hartnett is hot or we would have left half way through. If you are intrigued by this movie don't pay for it at the theatre. Wait for it to come out on DVD (and I'm sure it will be soon! ) That way you'll only waste 6 bucks on it.
5/10
26.10.2006 -
lesleychapman@ - age: 26-35
A noir masterwork with a delicious De Palma twist, without a doubt one of the best films of the year. Shrouded in mystery, the story unravels rather cloudily, but by the end everything is revealed perfectly and quite clearly considering how thick the whole mess of events is. Hartnett is startlingly effective as the prototypical film noir lead, and he's surrounded by a very well cast group of actors who all handle themselves very well. The script, while not as obviously brilliant as L. A. Confidential was, is still a very admirably constructed one, and De Palma shows the skill of an old pro. His idol (Alfred Hitchcock) would be proud of this work, that calls to mind 1972's Frenzy.
9/10
24.10.2006 -
the_crazycanuck@ - age: 13-17
| | | | |
Dont think its as bad as everyone says, I found it very interesting and messed up at the same time. Not a must see but it is a should see.
7/10
24.10.2006 -
mikeclay2@ - age: 18-25
It was an ok movie, they seem to be making more movies about true crimes that have happened which is something that I like to see but for everyone that thinks that this is like just made up... get with the times people this really happened, well not everything but the girl that died I mean you know who the killer is jeeze.
6/10
21.10.2006 -
tommy_mclaren@ - age: 13-17
| | | | |
Well done but couldn't help yawning from time to time.
6/10
20.10.2006 -
punk2116@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
1st half of movie, seemed interesting, enough, like LA Confidential, then I think some studio hack, decided it was too complicated, and ordered a "dummy down" as the 2nd half of movie is just a pile of garbage. A waste of some real talent here, probably the worst waste since "Be Cool".
2/10
17.10.2006 -
montyburnz@ - age: 36-49
The idea is not bad, I like Josh Hartnett; Hilary Swank and Scarlett Johansson, however at times I thought the movie was a bit slow. But in general not bad.
6/10
17.10.2006 -
ginger,sky@ - age: 26-35
Very disappointing. I thought it would be as good as LA Confidential and although it was similar and the sets and camera work was good, I think the script was written by a bunch of monkeys working independently as there were several subplots that went nowhere and were never explained. The end didn't make any sense at all so I guess that fitted in with the irrelevant subplots. The acting was weak - I'll avoid movies with Josh Harnett in the future.
4/10
15.10.2006 -
atayler@ - age: 36-49
I found this project to be a waste of talented actors. The plot was laughable, and the 'twists, and complexity' of it was choppy, and implausible. The things that I enjoyed about it, were the ambience, and the 'feeling' of film noir, and the detail to costuming, technical style of filming (when it showed one character at the bottom of the stairs, and the other at the top of the stairs, both in focus) In this respect, it was a very good 'period piece' visually, but unfortunately, it did not have enough substance the trailers indicated it would plot-wise, and plot, to me is paramount to enjoy a movie. Personally, if I had to recommend a movie that I thought 'The Black Dahlia' should have been, watch 'L. A. Confidential'.
3/10
13.10.2006 -
myrrdancer@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
Among the worst movies I've ever paid to see. Swank and Johannson were considered great actresses. I think this movie just changed that and ruined their career. They acted well, but that means nothing when the script and production is so terrible. The movie was dull and we had little sympathy for the characters. The only shining gem was the scene with Rose McGowan; she totally shined and because it was off-set from the main plot, it can stand out on its own as a great scene. I strongly suggest walking into the theatre after 40 minutes, catching the 10 minutes of Rose followed by k. D. lang, then walking out of the cinema to save yourself from the rest of this nonsensical excuse of a movie.
1/10
12.10.2006 -
jlvatron@ - age: 26-35
It was a good bedtime story-easily put me to sleep.
4/10
9.10.2006 -
jamaalhaynes03@ - age: 13-17
After I saw Pearl Harbor with Josh Hartnett I was in love with his acting skills and was inspired by him. Again the actors in another outstanding movie were ecellent. The story was told with passion and it was obvious the actors put in long hard years of work and made this movie a must see!
10/10
8.10.2006 -
nz_hottie12@ - age: 1-12
I thought this movie was excellent, people who are saying it was confusing, is because it must be to much of a mature movie, and they just cant handle it. It was a very good mystery, and It kept me wondering who the killer was. The acting was very good as well, and the movie overall was extreamly well done. I thought it was differnet... and not like all the other stupid mystery or scary movies... definitely will recommend people to see it! If you found it confusing jackass is in theaters now, and that may be more of a movie for you ;)
9/10
7.10.2006 -
menina_bonita8@ - age: 18-25
Great movie... if you go into it knowing what the movie is about. The rating it has gotten thus far is highly misleading. Judge it for yourself; you won't be sorry.
8/10
6.10.2006 -
little_princess_jl@ - age: 18-25
All the people who put bad reviews need to go out and hope for Jackass number 3 because that's all their intelligence can handle. For anyone with brains this is the movie to see.
10/10
6.10.2006 -
ulmer22s@ - age: 18-25
It was all chopped up and it was difficult to care about the charactors. My mother (79) wanted to see it. It was difficult having to explain to her what a [...] was. They could have done without that part.
4/10
2.10.2006 -
geobob@ - age: 50+
Josh Hartnett was the ONLY thing good about this movie... it was long, and went off on many tangents for no reason! The ending was very welcomed by all... So bad!
2/10
2.10.2006 -
sstuber1@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
It's a good movie. I dont understand why most ppl dislike it, , but I think im pretty impressed with the storyline and the acting. I love Josh Hartnett and Scarlett Johansson. :D.
7/10
1.10.2006 -
amandasuko@ - age: 13-17
It was a pretty good movie. It makes it seem more classic if you watch it at the theaters. The beginning to middle seemed a little slow to me, but it sped way up at the end, and was a little hard to grasp the concept of the film. Definitely a movie you will have to see more than once to fully understand. Great cast. Thumbs up!
7/10
1.10.2006 -
emberelyse@ - age: 13-17
Confusing and boring. Not much of a story-line.
3/10
1.10.2006 -
mike,lacey@ - age: 36-49
For all of you who thought the movie was "too confusing" and "jumped around too much", or thought the movie "had no direction", for God's sake, perhaps you all could lay off the "The Rock" movies, a little and realize how much you are insulting yourselves. Tells you something about the intelligence of today's movie viewers. Well, the Trailer Park Boys movie is coming out soon so hope you are happier then.
8/10
1.10.2006 -
tinamalamas@ - age: 26-35
I thought it was an amazing movie, It is very suspenceful and Will keep You wondering :)But not to the point where you are mad it is a good movie I loved it all 3 times I have seen It.
10/10
30.9.2006 -
iceis_007@ - age: 13-17
Dido... to all that rated this movie less then 3. Boring, very hard to follow, schizophrenic plot. Don't waste your money... not even a DVD rental.
2/10
30.9.2006 -
luvmuzik1000@ - age: 36-49
A pure Brian De Palma which will become a classic in the coming years. For a connaisseur audience only.
9/10
30.9.2006 -
bdemontoux@ - age: 26-35
One of the best movie trailers in years. If only the theatre had played it 60 times instead of the film, I'd be impressed. Strong performances, though, from all three female leads. May be worth watching for that.
5/10
30.9.2006 -
frostbiteboy@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
It was just stupid and pointless dont ever c it.
1/10
30.9.2006 -
dalton_685@ - age: 18-25
Way too hard to follow, not put together well at all...
3/10
29.9.2006 -
wogo@ - age: 26-35
It wasn't that hard to follow - didn't keep me in anticipation. I would wait for it to come out on DVD.
6/10
27.9.2006 -
jyjhongkong@ - age: 36-49
Not what I expected. A bit disjointed and difficult to follow.
6/10
27.9.2006 -
gerryroeder@ - age: 36-49
I liked this film noir detective flick. It's not LA Confidential mind you, but it's not too bad. Slow in spots, especially the first act. A much needed lighter moment is provided by the mother in the dinner scene around the half way point. Some levity was certainly needed by then. I wouldnt see it twice, but I am not dissapointed I spent my money on it.
7/10
26.9.2006 -
markusmaximus_30@ - age: 26-35
This was a good movie but was dragged out trying to be intriguing. Too bad! Could have been very good. I thought Hartnett was great but Scarlett Johansson was... not very good.
6/10
26.9.2006 -
itishere@ - age: 50+
| | | | |
This was the wost movie that I have ever seen. I know the story of the black dahlia and I was looking forward for the movie and it felt like the longest two hours of my life!!! If we werent a big group I would have also walked out and I HAVE NEVER WANTED TO walk out of a movie that bad!!! Words will not describe how bad this movie is...
1/10
26.9.2006 -
queenpp@ - age: 26-35
[...] If you liked LA Confidential - about the same...
8/10
26.9.2006 -
mikeevasi@ - age: 26-35
The movie was slow and uneventful.
2/10
25.9.2006 -
brettrobertson12@ - age: 18-25
Awful movie, very difficult to follow, and very drawn out. I actually saw 4 couples leave the theatre half way through it. I didn't want it to end... only because I still didn't understand what was going on.
3/10
25.9.2006 -
kckgreen@ - age: 18-25
I saw the movie and was disappointed. I had seen the previews for it and was under the impression it was a thriller. Just to confirm, it was far from that. Too long, slow and confusing. Quite a few people walked out. We stayed until the end, but wished we too would have left earlier.
6/10
25.9.2006 -
epapastathakis@ - age: 26-35
I want my money back! You can buy something at the store and get a refund if not happy. So it should be for rotten movies and I do mean rotten! I left the movie at the end still wondering how some of the charcactersfit into the story line. Best read the indroduction to understand the story line. There was no acting on anyone's part. People walked out in the middle of the movie and if I hadn't had to wait for friends for a ride home I would have gone too. Kept hoping the movie would be pulled together at the end even my friends said they had been lost in the movie at times.
1/10
24.9.2006 -
poodlepatch@ - age: 26-35
I have read everyone else's reviews and I must say that I have to go along with the people that actually paid attention to the story line. It was tricky at times, but well worth seeing on the big screen. Loved the era it was set in, loved the twists and turns it took at the end. So unexpected. It kept me guessing most of the way through. This is not an action flick kids, this is a real Hollywood mystery and one that you shouldn't miss seeing. Guess you can tell I just got back from seeing it and I will be it's the kind of movie that is going to stick for a while in my mind.
9/10
24.9.2006 -
mhgolf1@ - age: 50+
UGH:I sit sit sit, and listen. No action, we miss all the gorey kill. Whats the point. Ooh we solved the mystery. Wt [...] Waste of time.
1/10
24.9.2006 -
monkeys_kill24_7@ - age: 13-17
Boring, Boring, Boring. I thought by the trailors and the story this was going to be a good movie. Very disappointing and jumped around far too much.
4/10
24.9.2006 -
gna334@ - age: 50+
| 
