For most reviewers, this movie is atrocious, is feces, is garbage. To all those who think so I would like to suggest considering that Ulli Lommel's "Black Dahlia" (2003) was made at the end of the twenties and by somebody standing above critic from the gutter, like Salvador Dali or the early Luis Bunuel. In this case people would praise fantasy and techniques used for film topics that we otherwise have known until nausea. Is it that what Lommel wants to show when he presents four or fives times the almost identical killing scene? Or is it the fact that repetition recurs to itself and this process of self-reality is necessary to introduce new aspects of the crime that nobody would have foreseen? As a matter of fact, Lommel presents in this and his other movies practically the whole set of "alienation effects" (Brecht) which destroy the automatized attention horizon of the spectators.
Since most reviewers are also convinced that Lommel just wanted to profit from the success that was to expect from Brian De Palmas "Black Dahlia" which was released in 2006, let me tell you that the two "Black Dahlias" have nothing to do with one another. While De Palma's film is strongly based on the story of Elizabeth Short, Lommel connects a series of crimes in the present with the 1947 Los Angeles murder case. Lommel's idea that the modern series of killings could be motivated by the 92 years old producer who never had a chance to make his movie with the original "Black Dahlia" some half a century ago, is very original. Another important point is that according to what can be seen in Lommel's "Black Dahlia", it was already made in 2003 and only released in 2006. It would not be first time that two persons who did not know of one another's plan would come up with the same result. The auto-car was invented no less than three times by three different people who did not even know one another.
Last, but by no means least, one word about the constantly criticized style of Lommel. It seems to me that it is adequate to the semantics of his stories, thereby forming what is called in literature theory an "isomorphy". Lommel's movies are not pretentious, they show what the director wants to show, and Lommel does not even think that he is a second Fassbinder. Thus, I would like to introduce "pretence" as the kernel-criterion for judging if a movie has deserved a high or a low rating. In order to compare Lommel's and De Palma's "Black Dahlias", I have borrowed and watched both movies and given the latter a "1", because De Palma's movie is pretentious. The dramaturgy is not adequate to its topic, it is unnecessary complicated instead of being complex. Did nobody of all those wonder, who made Lommel's movie down on the cost of De Palma's film, why De Palma's "Black Dahlia" was nominated by an Oscar but at the same rated with only 5.5 by ten thousands of people?
Since most reviewers are also convinced that Lommel just wanted to profit from the success that was to expect from Brian De Palmas "Black Dahlia" which was released in 2006, let me tell you that the two "Black Dahlias" have nothing to do with one another. While De Palma's film is strongly based on the story of Elizabeth Short, Lommel connects a series of crimes in the present with the 1947 Los Angeles murder case. Lommel's idea that the modern series of killings could be motivated by the 92 years old producer who never had a chance to make his movie with the original "Black Dahlia" some half a century ago, is very original. Another important point is that according to what can be seen in Lommel's "Black Dahlia", it was already made in 2003 and only released in 2006. It would not be first time that two persons who did not know of one another's plan would come up with the same result. The auto-car was invented no less than three times by three different people who did not even know one another.
Last, but by no means least, one word about the constantly criticized style of Lommel. It seems to me that it is adequate to the semantics of his stories, thereby forming what is called in literature theory an "isomorphy". Lommel's movies are not pretentious, they show what the director wants to show, and Lommel does not even think that he is a second Fassbinder. Thus, I would like to introduce "pretence" as the kernel-criterion for judging if a movie has deserved a high or a low rating. In order to compare Lommel's and De Palma's "Black Dahlias", I have borrowed and watched both movies and given the latter a "1", because De Palma's movie is pretentious. The dramaturgy is not adequate to its topic, it is unnecessary complicated instead of being complex. Did nobody of all those wonder, who made Lommel's movie down on the cost of De Palma's film, why De Palma's "Black Dahlia" was nominated by an Oscar but at the same rated with only 5.5 by ten thousands of people?