"The Man Who Laughed" is the film that The Joker character was based off of. Unfortunately, The Black Dahlia Murder was never directly connected in the public's mind to The Joker character but that is exactly the point. The smile carved into her face is the symbol of The Joker and "Ed Jokisch" from the LAPD is the inspiration for The Joker character. Within the 1969 Zodiac Killer Cryptogram, the Black Dahlia killers are named --Jokisch, Tully and Tully's abortion Dr. assistant. The victim was arranged in the shape of a HEIROGLYPH which means 'bearded man' as part of a cult Egyptian dark magic ritual which centered around abortion and slave baby rings which go at least as far back as the Jack The Ripper case, which is also directly connected to the ZK and the Dahlia murder. The reason for the name of the notorious British killer is that Beethoven's "Eroica" symphony was famously 'ripped in half' when he found that Napoleon had made himself Emperor and the Zodiac Killer's symbol is a musical Coda, mentioning the famous symphony in its coded messages. The Ripper was connected to an abortion/prostitution ring wherein a royal bastard was prevented from being born. The connection to the Pinkerton's seals the deal that the same cult which won the Civil War for the imaginary Lincoln (a character created by the Masonic elitists under Pinkerton, but if you compare all Lincoln pictures you will find that he could not have been a real human being) since we've had the same frauds put on us one after the other since the formation of the new government under Lincoln. The Pinkerton's are the security outfit which became the corporate masters of the US Police Forces, and that power is still in place-- since most don't know.

The medical personnel who drained the blood and removed the organs from Smart's body were highly skilled from practicing abortion illegally with Jokisch of the LAPD apparently overseeing the racket. US Government sponsors sex slaves under National Security so breeding human beings in order to serve as sex slaves for blackmail, gangstalking and other political objectives. This is on record as a National Security issue and is secured by law enforcement. In other words, this is government sanctioned human breeding for sexual slavery which makes use of their slaves for dirty tricking in political contexts. Thus the condition of Ms. Short without organs, being separated in two halves and displayed as a heiroglyph was a clear indication of the medical team indicating Ms. Short had been the victim of retribution by a human trafficking ring with an Egyptian based cult theology practicing black magic rituals to defend their criminal enterprise.

In the first "Batman" comic-- look on the hat of The Joker character when he is in a police uniform. Where the number of the badge for the officer is or "LAPD" would be, in tiny lettering you can see 'j o k i s c h' indicating the partnership with Warner Brothers, Ed Jokisch, the LAPD and the creation of a criminal network which produces actual crimes then announces them in code to the public.

Thanks Brian! It's not bad but could have use a bit of script doctoring just for entertainment's sake, or you could use a better editor. Something because it's a bit sticky but you're still great.

The Black Dahlia case was one of the most gruesome and legendary unsolved mysteries in Los Angeles history. You would think that story along with director Brian de Palma would lead to something substantial. You would be mistaken. The movie isn’t really about that murder. It’s about police officer Josh Hartnett and the love triangle he finds himself in with his partner Aaron Eckhart and Scarlett Johansson. Not only that but not enough happens to keep even that plot interesting. De Palma tries to give the movie a neo-Noir feel with Hartnett giving a voice over and filming everything with a dark hue but that can’t save it. I would recommend people avoid this to save themselves 2 hours of their life.

(Truthfully, I feel this is more of a 3.5 star effort, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for reasons I'll elaborate upon.)

I should start off by warning the reader that I can't adequately review this film - either on its own merits, or as an adaptation of the novel - without at least touching upon a small handful of major spoilers. Therefore, if one *really* doesn't want to have any of the large twists ruined, it might be best not to continue.

After all of the terrible reviews I've read of this movie here and elsewhere, I came into this with extremely low expectations, but was very pleasantly surprised. I had almost literally *just* finished reading the book this movie was based on, however, and I have some thoughts on this point.

First of all, it's important to note the fact that it's fairly obvious a large portion of the negative reviewers have never read the book: the overwhelming majority of the criticism heaped upon this movie that doesn't have to do with the acting has to do with factors inherent to the original story and the adaptation thereof. Read a synopsis and reviews of the book, first; Ellroy admits to taking quite a few liberties with the facts of the actual case for the sake of...well, for the sake of his own catharsis about his mother, if you read his essay on the matter (which comes as the new afterword to recent editions of the book). So, no, if you're looking for a 100% factual accounting of the Elizabeth Short murder case and investigation, you're not going to find it here. And people who read a lot of mystery/thriller novels of this length (as opposed to the older and much shorter 200-ish page novels by the likes of Hammett, Chandler, et al.) will know how dicey it can be to adapt a dense, story-driven 300+ page novel into a movie of under 3 hours. Depending on the precise source material, this task can range from difficult to impossible. With Ellroy's narrative focus bouncing around from topic to topic like an easily-distracted kitten (in some cases, he doesn't even stay on a single line of investigation within the *same page*), multiple distinct climaxes followed by points where the book could have ended logically, and a tremendous number of dead-ends that don't end up having any bearing on the case, this book clearly edged towards the "impossible" end of that spectrum: the original cut of this film was over 3 hours, and De Palma had to edit an hour of it out, which is a primary reason for many of the film's pacing and storyline issues. I suspect it still would have felt harried even with the extra hour, given how much of the novel they had to leave out. (I suppose I should add that I'm not necessarily a particular fan of Brian De Palma, so I'm not just some loyal apologist.)

Second, for those who have actually read the book, I pose *the* important (and largely ignored in the other reviews) question: was this movie a good adaptation of the book? I would have to say yes, very much so. It's undeniable that, due to the immense scope and density of the book (which included multiple-chapter trips to Boston, New Jersey, Tijuana and Ensenada that were all dropped for the film), entire plot threads; subplots; and even major characters had to be dropped for time, and several major and important story elements (Bucky Bleichert's fall from grace, Lee Blanchard's death, the extent of Lee's corruption and Kay Lake's involvement therein, the Sprague/Linscott family's ultimate fates) had to be altered to accommodate these changes. But they were tweaked in ways that still work well in the overall context and story of the film. Ellroy spends an inordinate amount of time and ink on the Fire & Ice duo's infatuation/fixation on Elizabeth "Betty" Short/The Dahlia - though De Palma eschews the Bleichert narration from the book which literally states as much, it manages to come through quite nicely in a very subtle way with the sequences of Bucky viewing Betty's screen tests. One thing I often use as a barometer for how well a movie adapts a book is how much dialog from the book makes it through to the film unaltered, and many of the important scenes jumped out at me in this regard (it's tough to forget the phrase "tighter than a crab's ass" once you've heard it).

The production design, one of the most important things for a period piece in our increasingly superficial film culture, was astonishingly immersive and well-done - I stop just short of saying *completely* "authentic," however, because the large part of me that's obsessed with 1930s/40s imagery (as a card-carrying member of the Art Deco Society of Los Angeles) can pick apart a few anachronisms, inaccuracies, and (most commonly) improbabilities within the setting and design. Still, it's all quite beautifully-done, and - to the casual, non-pedant observer - quite period-accurate. Most importantly, it also met my expectations as to what the set pieces would have looked like as I was reading the book. The musical score is alarmingly similar to Goldsmith's for "LA Confidential" - a good thing insofar as it was appropriate to the story and aesthetics, even if lacking in originality.

Ultimately, what hurts this film most are all the things that people have already pointed out: story flaws, mediocre acting, its pacing and ponderous length. I've already addressed the writing- and editing-related issues, insofar as they're largely inherent to and inherited from the source novel. I didn't find the acting to be any great "nails on a chalkboard"-type stumbling block, but I would agree none of the main players deserved particular recognition. I was rather impressed with Mia Kirshner's "screen test" performances as Betty Short, however. Through these, and her, we see the character Ellroy intended to portray: the inept actress and tragic figure. Some have said that this film can't decide whether to embrace or parody the film noir tropes and cliches, but I didn't notice this to any great extent. Indeed, the movie actually tones down several of the most egregious introspective examples of this from Ellroy's novel (the aforementioned example of Bucky viewing Betty's screen tests standing in for his outright obsession with her in so many words of narration, the omission of numerous examples of his lusting for Short after-the-fact).

Still, as an adaptation of the novel, I don't find enough of these things here for me to consider this film anything besides what it is: a just "good" adaptation of an excellent, albeit flawed, novel. Overall, I don't really know what, if anything (or how much), could have been done to improve upon this, given the source material. It's the sort of thing that really would have stood best as a mini-series - each of the novel's four "sections" as an hour-long episode - allowing writer, director, and designer to really spread their wings without having to edit out or alter too much of the original novel.

I recommend this movie to people who enjoyed the book, albeit with the caveat that it helps one's ability to follow it if the book is still quite fresh in one's mind. I would cautiously recommend it to people fond of noir fiction (particularly neo-noir films) and 1940s aestetics, but not strongly, for all of the aforementioned reasons.

I watched this film because of my interest in post WWII culture in the U.S. and the Elizabeth Short case; also known as the Black Dahlia. What I found was a long, boring film about cops and robbers and after forwarding to the Black Dahlia part, saw that it was a cartoonish representation. I never give up on films, but just could not stand another minute of this. A comic book would have been more entertaining.

For those who after all these years have not viewed this film, let me begin by saying, if you are seeking a film that covers the death of Elizabeth Smart, aka the Black Dahlia, in dramatic detail and storyline, you will be disappointed. I suggest you seen out the numerous documentaries that are out there.
The Black Dahlia tag line is simply the enticement to draw you in. Elements of the history, as well as some falsehoods about the crime and the victim are presented. What we have is a beautifully filmed story of 2 cops, 1 girlfriend, and 1 mentally disturbed girl, complete with costume design and grand sets that artfully paint the LA/Hollywood scene of the late forties...with numerous twists and turns, and confusion
The film is adapted from a novel, and originally ran over 3 hours in length, but was trimmed to its final release of just over 2 hours. Perhaps we need a full directors cut to be released to aid in filling in some of the questions one may have.

One interesting part I found was how the Universal silent film, The Man Who Laughs, starring Conrad Veidt, was incorporated into the film. The main characters go to see the movies to see it....and much later, a painting of Conrad Veidt, as Gwynplaine is hanging on the wall in a scene. I am not certain that a 1928 silent film would be showing at a theater in 1947, but both Dracula and Frankenstein were re-released in 1947, so perhaps it's not so out of a possibility.

Enjoy the film for what it is. The bluray presentation is excellent, as are 'extras.' My only complaint is the lack of a commentary by de Palma or other film historian for added context.

My dad could not stand "how slow the movie was." I thought it was great. I thought the pacing was excellent. And is there a pay off? There are many pay offs. This film is rich with direction, script, and acting. Everything for the time period looks accurate. The attitude the feel, it is all good. I highly recommend the film to anyone that enjoys well done movies. Try it out. It is long, but the pay offs are worth it. Also, it is based on a true story written (the book) by one of the detectives that investigated the case. So, give it a watch.

Technically, this movie is outstanding. Vilmos Zsigmond's Oscar-nominated cinematography and the recreation of 1940s Los Angeles is quite stunning. The production design team certainly deserved an Oscar nod, as well. I understand director De Palma generated a three-hour cut that was trimmed down to under two hours (probably by studio suits), which would explain the rather disjointed storytelling. Every cast member has their moments but on the whole this is not the film they will be remembered for. Aaron Eckhart's high energy, self-involved character is a bit much at times, but one cannot argue he is not committed to his character's ego! Fiona Shaw (Aunt Petunia in the HARRY POTTER movies) delivers a gloriously unhinged performance as Hilary Swank's heavily medicated mother. Most critics dismiss her performance as over the top but with a character as such there is no top and Miss Shaw hits all the right marks (note to critics: people like this really do exist). PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE star William Finley (in his final film role) is chilling in a brief but memorable performance. Not De Palma's finest hour, but certainly a worthy effort and absolutely beautiful to watch.

Well enough done, but ultimately unsatisfying.
This is based, as the film itself clearly states, on the novel, not the actual case.
And, unlike /LA Confidential/ (based on a different novel by the same author), it is not that interesting.
Well, unless you want to see a film mostly about two guys and a girl.
The guys are cops, and the murder is solved at the end -- all at once.
And it is so tawdry one wonders why they made the film.