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?

I am a veteran gorehound—maybe one of those low-brow gorehounds referred to in other reviews—but even I feel the need to sputter about this travesty, whether or not it's worth the effort.The sketchy plot involves one of the last men to see the Dahlia, aka Beth Short, alive in 1947. Now 92 years old, he is obsessed with seeing her one more time "before he leaves this planet." Presumably to return to whatever planet he and the other filmmakers came from. To that end, he recruits two hulking psychopaths and an equally deranged teen-aged girl. (If the hulks had half a brain cell between them, they would have offed the old goat and the girl for being downright annoying.) They hope to discover the new Black Dahlia by staging a fake casting call and luring starlets to their hideout. Of course, all but one of them fall short (tee hee) of expectations and are tortured and cut to pieces. Several dumber-than average movie cops investigate; one of them is butchered. No righteous payback for the four villains. THE END.As I sat through this, I had the feeling that Lommel had watched LAST HOUSE ON DEAD END STREET, then decided to stage a murder similar to that flick's infamous torture killing. Over and over, to the point where seeing people drilled and bisected actually becomes boring. …DEAD END STREET, with all its flaws, boasted some good locations, eerie music and atmosphere and a couple of convincing actors. Lommel disregards any sort of quality and instead goes for amateurish gore to the point of tedium, making matters worse by shooting the whole mess on video.I had no trouble getting through this without hitting the fast forward button. It was entertaining to see which rule of basic film-making Lommel would break next. It was also amusing to watch victims enter the killers' lair, see barred cells and bloodstained tables with shackles—and still not run when the running was good. I cracked up when the psychos went out to scatter pieces of their victims around the city. They do this in broad daylight and nobody notices them, even though the girl dresses like a reject from a School For The Retarded and the butchers wear clothing drenched with blood.Dark-haired Ivy Elfstrom, it should be noted, is a knockout. Too bad she doesn't actually look like Beth Short, any more than this production resembles a motion picture.I still can't believe that Ulli Lommel directed this. His second feature, TENDERNESS OF THE WOLVES, was skillfully made and well-acted. THE BOOGEYMAN and THE DEVONSVILLE TERROR weren't masterpieces, but they featured some interesting supernatural elements and were light-years ahead of BLACK DAHLIA. It's also hard to believe that this was directed by a man in his sixties rather than a cackling teenager with a camera, gallons of stage blood and some power tools. Most directors try to break new ground or improve with age but Ulli Lommel seems to be going the way of Jess (LUST FOR FRANKENSTEIN) Franco instead.Perversely, this flick almost makes me want to rent Lommel's CANNIBAL, ZODIAC KILLER, etc. Just out of curiosity. To see if all his recent movies are equally atrocious.Meanwhile, both halves of The Black Dahlia must be spinning in their grave.

I rented this by accident. because i thought this was the Brian De Palma movie. the acting was absolutely horrible. the script was probably written by an eight year old. and it is officially the most disgustingly fake gory movie i have have ever seen. And i've seen a lot of horror movies.I cannot believe that they allow this in stores. And the director is complete wackjob. And the camera angles look someone took out their video camera and shot with it. And a lot of other people checked this out because they thought it was the other movie also. there should be a warning label on the cover that this movie is not the one with josh hartnett and it's the worst piece of trash ever.

That's all this film is - Gorenography.My mate brought it up tonight and goes "Man, you gotta see this. It's not the DePalma, but it's a super-gory sick flick". Well, ten minutes in and I thought, "This is terrible...". Twenty minutes in and I thought, "Have I fallen into a worm-hole? This is the same film..." Thirty minutes in and I actually said, "I am enjoying this about as much as I would enjoy watching a close relative die of cancer."By the 45 minute mark I had had enough. The quality of film-making here was actually worse than many porn movies I have seen, and I'm not a big porn fan. In fact the movie had the exact same structure as a run-of-the-mill skin flick. Girl goes to audition - girl gets murdered - cops have banter at crime scene - dumb arty surreal scene - girl goes to audition - girl gets murdered...And so it continues. For eighty minutes.I felt so used after watching this filth that I felt the need to research it on the net, just to see what other people's opinions were about it. Don't get me wrong - I'm a seasoned gorehound, but this was just insulting. I now have a much bleaker view of the movie industry having seen it. It was guerrilla film-making at it's most abysmal level. If Ulli says he had ANY kind of filming permit for this, he is clearly lying.Avoid at ALL costs, and I feel for those who are unfortunate enough to have had the displeasure.