Black Dahlia (2006 Video) User Reviews

Worthless Ripoff

[sexytail · 1/10 · 23 November 2006]

It's pretty obvious that Lionsgate only released Ulli Lommel's "Black Dahlia" so that they could cash in on Brian De Palma's "The Black Dahlia" (much like other recent sound alike ripoffs "War of the Planets", "When a Killer Calls", and "Flight 93"). Like many of those, this hit DVD before the big movie it imitates in the preemptive rip-off tradition started by Roger Corman. In short, people are supposed to see this DVD on the shelf and mistake it for the De Palma movie. Working at a video store I have encountered the intentional confusion these ripoffs create time and time again.

Anyway, let's talk about the movie already. Rather than re-telling the story of the actual Black Dahlia murder there is simply a brief prologue about it complete with a black and white filter and fake film grain over what is obviously low grade video footage. Then the movie drops us in LA of the 21st century (now) where two plain clothes cops make a drug bust. These are supposed to be our heroes. Then we meet the Satan worshiping killers who lure girls to auditions to play the Black Dahlia and then get murdered. In between looking at bodies and drinking with his partner, the younger drug cop, the rookie whose name I can't remember, looks up the original 40s murder online and dreams about it. That's pretty much it.

The killers kill in very long slow boring scenes before leaving body parts for the police. The police investigate, the killers kill some more ad infinitum. The acting sucks all around. All the murder scenes are very slow and boring and each killing is nearly identical the the last. There's also a lot of unnecessary after effects like rewinding and white flashes. Shots of a graveyard and the 40s reenactment are cut into weird places too. Footage is re-used so often I got to thinking they probably only shot an hour of video before beefing it up to 80 minutes in the editing room (and the credits are already rolling by 78 minutes).

Apart from those confused into thinking it's something else, who is this movie really for? It's not for mystery fans because everything is spelled out to the point where you wonder why the police haven't solved it. It's not for action fans because the action is rare and pathetic. It could only be for very patient low-brow perverts and ultra-low-brow gore hounds, and those people could easily find better somewhere else. I've been renting straight to video crap all year and this is the worst movie I've found so far. For your own sake, stay far away.

Possibly the worst I've ever seen

[smokskren · 1/10 · 26 November 2006]

I wasn't expecting this to be the caliber of a box office hit but I was hoping it'd be palatable. I watched something like the first 15 minutes and decided it probably wasn't going to get better (it didn't), so I watched the rest of it at 1.5 speed. The photography was unreal, or too real - the outdoor scenes looked like someone just took their video camera outside & took pictures in the alley. In view of the other horrible 'special effects' maybe this was supposed to be special too but it just came across as bad. The only way I could tell it hadn't been filmed by someones personal camera was that the voices were clear in all of the scenes, no extra background noise. In addition to the not-so-special fx the plot couldn't have been worse. It has the same situations that every bad scary movies does where the young innocent walks into a situation that no sane person would enter and then lo & behold...the bad guys are there!!! Totally predictable as well. This movie isn't worth 10 minutes of your time. The ONLY thing that I have anything even remotely good to say anything about was the music soundtrack, an odd mix of swing/Frank Sinatra type songs with some seriously heavy acid rock. If you've read to the end of this review, you've already spent more time on this movie than it's worth. Terrible. Lousy. Bad everything. Really, really horribly done.

This movie is the film equivalent of a dry heave!!!!

[DisasterpieceTheater · 1/10 · 16 December 2006]

This retarded pile of vomit was made solely for the purpose of trying to cash in on the major studio release of Brian De Palma's "Black Dahlia", but the talent and production level in this load of crap is in the sewer. Take a look at the actors and crew involved in this movie (you should write them down and avoid anything with their names on it), these people are all talent less wastes of skin who have no place in the movie business at all, they should be forbidden to even watch films. In fact I implore all of Hollywood to blacklist anyone whose name is in anyway associated with this worthless piece of hot trash. The acting is atrocious, and I mean laughably bad (even for B movie standards), but only for the first 5 minutes, then it just becomes really annoying to the senses, so much so that you will actually be angry a half hour into it. They must have had a casting call for the crappiest actors in Hollywood, they are the WORST!!!!!!! I've seen better acting in an Ed Wood movie. The worst part is that you can actually see them all thinking to themselves, "this is it, this is my big break, and I'm gonna blow everybody away with my acting chops, one day I'm gonna be the next Meryl Streep (as she takes her shirt off and gets sprayed with ketchup by two douche bags in horrible costumes, all the while screaming unconvincingly)". The dialogue is awful; I can't believe someone actually wanted credit for this script, who is it? Jeff Frentzen? Kudos to you Jeff, you've more than proved that you can write a script on no talent. I'm sure when you die one day, you'll move on to that great House of Screenwriters in the sky and I'm sure they'll all put padlocks in their socks and whip you for your sins. You should have employed a drunken kindergartener to write this for you, I'm sure the outcome would be better. Ulli Lommel, you suck. You are not a director, you're a joke. I've seen better work on the public access channel.

Awful

[azimuth361 · 1/10 · 3 December 2006]

I believe that this is the worst movie I've ever seen.... and I sat through "Atomic Train". At least that has Mena Suvari in it, so I can watch it with the sound off. "Black Dahlia" had not a single virtue. No humor. No plot. No acting. No Irony. There's not a single interesting, entertaining or amusing thing about this movie. I wanted really badly to walk out, but my movie mate drove and insisted on staying. I wanted to stay in the theater watching this schlock only slightly more than I wanted to risk hypothermia. It was a tough choice; watch "Black Dahlia" or die. Death would have been only slightly worse. This movie just plain sucked. It wasn't even interesting by accident. 'Nuff said. This movie just sucked. Addendum: Okay, some of the the music was good.

hack job by a real hack

[allenk752 · 1/10 · 25 November 2006]

Ulli Lommel's latest is a blatant attempt to cash in on Brian DePalma's BLACK DAHLIA. (But why, since that bombed??) This shot-on-video-with-non-actors disgrace is the kind of amateurish junk that gives all horror films a bad name. And we all know there are many good ones. This is not even a good "gore" film, even though there are plenty of severed limbs and lots of squishing blood; H.G. Lewis's films of the 60's were better than this, and that's saying a lot because Lewis' films are horrendous. But at least Lewis can say he was an innovator of sorts. Lommel's (so-called) films get worse with each outing.

This DAHLIA is boring, repetitious, pretentious and laughable. Even the "artsy" video effects can't hide just how junky and moronic this rip-off is.

Buyers and renters beware!!

Unbelievably Atrocious, Cheap Garbage.

[drownsoda90 · 1/10 · 9 December 2006]

"Black Dahlia" is a cheap, horribly-constructed straight-to-video (and shot-on-video) film that was obviously released soon after De Palma's "The Black Dahlia" hit theaters in hopes of cashing in on the basic premise. This atrocious film follows a copycat killer in the Los Angeles area who is murdering innocent people after asking them in for acting auditions, their bodies found dismembered across the city. The murders are supposed to be modeled after the real-life murder of aspiring actress Elizabeth Short in the late 1940s, but have very little in common with her murder at all. Who is this mimicking killer? Who knows? Who cares? I know that I didn't, and anyone who rents this film won't either.

Just as the rest of Lommel's films are, this movie is bad. Like, really bad. For one, the plot is just ridiculous. A copycat killer of a real unsolved murder? Come on. Then, there's the acting. It's worse than a B-movie extravaganza - the performances were completely laughable. And the cinematography is horrible - like the rest of Lommel's movies, this was also shot on video, so the quality looks extremely cheap, and the special effects were really bad. Granted, some films can succeed with such problems, but this film fails on all levels, because the plot is boring to begin with and was so ridiculous.

There are even some laughable black & white flashback sequences to the 1940s Hollywood featuring an actress playing the Elizabeth Short character, which are beyond cheesy. Among the flashbacks is a scene featuring the discovery of Short's body, which shows two investigators kneeling over a body that is lying under a tree in front of a brick building. For those familiar with the real case, you will easily know that Elizabeth Short's body was found in a vacant, grassy lot - not under a small tree next to a downtown building. Looks like the filmmakers needed to study a little more into the real crime. This, among other things, just adds to the overall cheap quality that is this movie. I think that more time was spent creating the cover artwork for the DVD (which was actually not bad looking) than there was on the film itself, so don't let that fool you.

Like "Green River Killer" (and the rest of the 'true-crime' based films that this filmmaker chooses to direct), "Black Dahlia" is a horrible movie that lacks any qualities that could make it seem remotely appealing. I can't stress this enough, but do not rent films with the name "Ulli Lommel" branded on them. Rather than seeing this piece of garbage, see the De Palma film, which, while it is semi-fictional, at least focuses on the real case and the murder. If I could, I'd give it a zero out of ten. 1/10.

Never Been Fooled Before

[sleepwaking · 1/10 · 4 December 2006]

I've never been fooled before. This film has the distinguishing characteristic of being the only time I've mistakenly rented the wrong film. The entire budget for this film was put into the cover art and the rest was probably spent on catering donuts to the worst set of actors and the most ridiculous make-up effects I've seen in many many years.

It's a terrible terrible film for the first five minutes. I wouldn't know about the rest because it's simply inexcusable. I don't know how anyone could watch this entire movie unless cheap, stupid gore with broad satanic strokes appeals to them like pornography. And clearly the number of people who would rent the film on its own merits are few enough that cheap, rip-off packaging tactics are required to eke out a few more dollars from an unsuspecting public.

Truly Awful

[sheilanagig25 · 1/10 · 2 December 2006]

I didn't even get past the credits when I began to have my doubts. Then it got worse. This is basically bottom of the barrel no-budget B-movie. The acting is terrible, and the script is enough to make you cry. Don't bother renting or watching it. This film makes Italian giallo films look professional and slick. The gore is obviously fake, and you begin to wonder about three minutes in whether the director cast his family in it to keep them happy. I suspect he also borrowed their cars for the film. The childish sing-song and the inclusion of "666" in the Black Dahlia mix was cheap too. Nothing about this film looks professional or particularly well thought out. It is cheapness immortalized on celluloid.

A Second vote for Worst Movie ever made

[ronpam · 1/10 · 30 November 2006]

We were in a hurry at the video store, and thought this was the other Black Dahlia movie (with Josh Hartnett). Shame on us! The production values of a high-school movie made by teenagers who would rather be doing something else HELP to make this the worst movie ever made. The plot is worse than a bad (not that there's any other kind) porn movie, with the same things happening over and over again -- and not in a "Groundhog Day" kind of way. The soundtrack was the best part of the movie, but can't make up for the rest of the waste of the 20 minutes it took us to watch this movie with fast-forwarding through the massively graphic violence. I've read most of the books about the Black Dahlia and figured the movie would play fast and loose with the facts. I shouldn't have worried about that. Using the device of The Black Dahlia didn't get in their way for a minute. I'm sure the producers counted on people making the mistake we did. DON'T rent this movie.

Do not be fooled, this is a ploy to steal your money

[spamspaz-1 · 1/10 · 25 November 2006]

At the store I was fooled that this was the studio version, but don't be fooled, this is the biggest pile of feces I've ever seen, and I only watched the first 15 minutes. I swear that if I watched any more my eyes would have exploded and my ears would melt from shear disgust. This movie was made in about a week in order to steal some thunder from the "real" movie. This is like Snakes on a Train, they change the title slightly and let the money roll in, but don't let these freaks get any money. They wasted your money and however long you sat to watch this crap. From what I saw, they special effects were created via ketchup bottles, the plot was written by a eight year old who was way to interested in boobies and blood, and the actors are people that probably needed the work so bad they would be willing to be paid minimum wage. Period.

My High School Theatre Class could've done better

[persoje · 14 January 2007]

I too, accidentally rented this video. I made it about 15 minutes into the movie, before I had absolutely laughed so hard at the poor acting and props that I hurt myself. When I realized that this movie indeed had the INTENTION of evoking fear, I admit, I laughed harder. I returned to my nearest blockbuster within 45 minutes and the woman behind the counter knew the drill- I showed her the DVD I had rented, she smiled knowingly and pointed to the movie I had intended to rent on the wall. How this film actually made it into a blockbuster still amazes me. Whoever was involved in this production should be taunted repeatedly until they are so overwhelmed with embarrassment that they never again even try to AUDITION for another part. If you were the camera man, the director, heck even the fake plastic arm they dance around with to techno music (no I'm not kidding...) should find a new career. Swallow your pride: Your parents were right. You will amount to nothing.

Please, if you are reading this, and you were involved in the making of this film, you need to go back and get your college degree. You should never, ever, even remotely consider ever involving your talents in another movie... ever.

Liked Movie, Especially the Ending

[danras01 · 8/10 · 16 November 2009]

The movie is not for everyone and is a bit repetitious. However, the repetitions help build up to the ending. Admittedly I was drinking when I watched it. I was in prison some years ago and used to be tortured regularly by my cellmate (and occasionally another inmate) until I screamed. I did not really mind it and, unlike the movie, was not cut open. One time in between tortures, my cellmate had a smile on his face and I asked him, "You like this (torturing me) don't you?" He shook his head yes. Perhaps that helps explain why I liked the ending of the movie when everyone, except the victim, was beaming with glee. Besides the ending, I also liked the girl in pigtails and the marching scenes.

Keep moving nothing to see here.

[juliankennedy23 · 7/10 · 2 December 2006]

Ulli Lomell's Black Dahlia 7 out of 10. No the score is not a misprint. Yes I'm going to have to use the entire review to explain this grievous lack of judgment.

First of all this is not the studio release of Black Dahlia. This is a Z budget rip off with decent cover art. Second this is an Ulli Lomell movie who I swear is Uwe Boll's uncle and one of the worst directors working in sub-par serial killer films today. (His Zodiac Killer was one of the worst films I've seen this year) He and his trusty 1985 camcorder have been shoveling out serial killer movies the last few years and he apparently has some compromising pictures of Lion's Gate executives because they keep releasing them.

Half the cast is unnecessary, the drunken cop is over the top and one of the main bad guys is Anna Nicole Smith's first husband. The Saw rip-off directing style and three sets location are horrible.

So why the positive score? Somewhere in the first twenty minutes or so the movie becomes so bad it actually becomes good. There is something ridiculously appealing about vivisection, bondage and catholic school girl uniforms mixed in with swing music. Now read that last sentence again if that doesn't appeal to you run far and fast. There is nothing else to see here so keep moving.

Also in the films favor is that the acting isn't so bad it grates on the nerves. (A real risk with zero budget films) The gore scenes are plentiful and done in a Monty Python over the top style. The ladies are somewhat attractive and actually look like real people. (I don't think this was a naturalistic touch by Lomell I just think he couldn't afford better looking plastic woman.) The soundtrack is an excellent combination of catchy monk style classical (think the Conan soundtrack) and 40's style pop tunes. When a pigtailed catholic schoolgirl and two masked guys dance around with severed limbs to a Sinatra tune you simply can't wipe the smile off my face. That's why I liked it. Excuse me while I go seek some help.

No question about it...

[CaribbeanBlues · 1/10 · 17 December 2006]

This is the worst "movie" ever made. Of course, calling it a movie is actually exaggerating its merits. No plot. No acting. No nothing. Two guys are silent for at least 45 minutes. One woman should have been. Sorry, but repeating "F___ you bitch!!!" fifty times does not constitute dialogue. Saying it with the same intonation fifty times makes you the anti-actress. Even the same gore was repeated over and over and over. (The "writer" couldn't come up with even a variation?)

Bottom line is there was nothing that you would define as a movie except that the videotape was transferred to DVD and sold in stores. Everyone involved should stay a long way from the business. You have not one iota of talent.

Watching this movie is a waste of time

[Piratehowie · 1/10 · 17 February 2007]

Impersonal InhumanityI Inhumanness What else more Can I talk about this movie? Yes, It makes me feel the director is a totally freak. I can't feel any logical in the story. The story didn't give us a clear answer about what meaning it want to show us. And seems like there's no end for the movie. But believe me, this end is not the end an ordinary movie will do. In fact, I watch this movie because at first the name made me feel it's the movie acted by Hilary Swank and Josh Hartnett. But It's not. So I think anyone want to watch this movie just because they pick the wrong movie by mistake. And maybe there's someone like this, if it is, this one must be freaky and illogical, too.

Oh, Geez

[laney082 · 1/10 · 22 February 2007]

I think that this movie must have took all of five dollars to create. BUT if it took more than that, then that was a collosial waste of taxpayers money. More importantly, it was a waste of my time looking it up on Netflix and watching it once it arrived. Ulli Lommel, please stop making five dollar movies and go back to your day job!!!! I realize that this man is not from the United States and maybe that is why he is so uh.......yea, but my God......does he have to be cheap and sleezy too?!?!?!?! This movie really did no justice to the real case of the Black Dahlia. To anyone who hasn't seen this movie: DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME......TRUST ME......

Senseless and Sadistic Crap

[claudio_carvalho · 1/10 · 10 June 2007]

I borrowed this DVD by mistake from a colleague expecting to see Brian De Palma's "The Black Dahlia". I realized my mistake in the beginning, since I was surprised with the amateurish camera and bad acting, but I decided to see this flick until the very end. I could not believe what I was seeing, certainly one of the worse movies ever released on DVD. There is not story, the cinematography is cheap, the edition is terrible, the soundtrack is inadequate and the poor cast is ham and amateurish. But the worst is obviously the director and writer Uli Lommel, who might be the reincarnation of Edward D. Wood Jr. I believe this is the first movie of this "director" that I have watched, but checking the IMDb User Rating of his filmography, I noted the quality of his films. My vote is one. (Why IMDb does not provide zero? Is it because of the formula used to determine the User Rating?).

Title (Brazil): "Dália Negra" ("Black Dahlia")

Who called this a movie? Don't be fooled!

[david-1976 · 1/10 · 30 November 2006]

Usually a bad movie inspires a writer to reach new heights of invective, but this so-called movie defies description. A short blonde girl with a really weird voice, dressed in a Catholic high-school uniform, two guys who flourish power tools, and an old guy who was supposed to have known the original "Black Dahlia" have teamed up to lure actress wannabes into an old jail cafeteria kitchen, where they strap them to a table and cut them up, then taking body parts to various places and piling them up, while the police scratch their heads in wonder.

First of all, don't be fooled into thinking that this is the Brian DePalma film. I have a weakness for DePalma, from "Carrie" and "Body Double" on forward--so a little gore doesn't disturb me. It's just that this gore is so stupid.

This masterpiece comes from the hands of Ulli Lommel, and indeed the film is called "Ulli Lommel's Black Dahlia." Who is Ulli Lommel? Well, apparently he was a child actor, a protégé of Fassbinder and then of Andy Warhol. He is over 60, but he makes films that would embarrass most high-school videotape proto-Spielbergs. The screenplay does nothing to reveal what moves its central characters, the psychopaths, to do what they do--not even a little. Most of the action consists of women screaming while we hear the noises of power tools--most notably a reciprocating saw--and see spurts of Hershey's syrup--straight from the convenient squeeze bottle!--covering their faces.

There is absolutely nothing to recommend this film, which is part of a straight-to-DVD series about serial killers that Lommel seems to have arranged for himself. Obviously he thinks he's doing something grand, but from where I'm sitting it looks to me like a huge con. I am reminded of early John Waters (think "Pink Flamingoes") but obviously Waters has grown from that early effort. At 60-plus, I hardly imagine that Lommel is going to do much growing-- he's just going to sit around playing with his own caca.

If I could choose a rating lower than 1, then I would.

[nonefornow · 1/10 · 16 December 2006]

I accidentally rented this movie from Blockboster thinking this was "The Black Dahlia" instead of "Ulli Lommel's Black Dahlia." 1. How can such a film get released on DVD and end up in Blockbuster stores? 2. There was no character development whatsoever. 3. Was there a storyline? 4. The acting was just as bad as the storyline. 5. The camera work was just plain laughable. 6. They tried to make horror out of grotesque imaging, which did not do it for me.

After watching the movie after 20 minutes or so, I just could not take it any more. The filler and fluff that they tried to put in the movie to create the "scary," more like laughable, mood was a waste of time.

I can't let you watch this movie!

[roland1325 · 1/10 · 12 January 2007]

This movie is the worst thing I have ever seen! It makes Uwe Boll's movies look like masterpieces. I only had the opportunity to see this scourge on the world because I friend of mine mistakingly rented online it instead of Brian De Palma's movie "The Black Dahlia", similar to a previous user's comments. It didn't come in a case so I was curious. Good Lord! I had to watch most of it on 8X fast forward. There was absolutely no plot, the acting was atrocious, and the cinematography was unbelievably awful. It looked worse than home movies that kids make for high school classes. The killing scenes were so retarded that I felt dumber for watching them. It seems that I have sinned somehow for wasting my time with this movie.

Ulli has done it again. Can someone please stop him!

[cosmothecat · 1/10 · 27 May 2007]

Here's my first question: How much does Ulli make for each of his movies? I would love to know because I'd love to be 'ol Ulli. To get paid for the garbage he puts out is amazing. I would also like to commend the writers of this movie for taking their inspiration from the back of a shampoo bottle. Directions on back of shampoo bottle: Shampoo, Rinse, Repeat. That is all I thought about as a friend and I suffered though our 3rd Ulli gem. Girl comes in. Girl gets slaughtered. Killers drop off body parts. Location shots with a police radio in the background. Detectives poking said body part while others around them talk about...basically nothing. Girl comes in...you get the picture. Don't forget to throw in some back story about the other characters whom you could care less about. One positive thing about this movie is that you can switch between the movie audio and director commentary and not miss a beat of the movie. Not that the commentary is any good. I can't wait for the next movie from the German horror master (I say this with lots of sarcasm). I hear he has another zodiac movie out. I guess he just didn't get it right with his first one "Zodiac Killer".

My comment

[SunnieFaerie · 29 December 2006]

I have to totally agree with sleepwaking! I'm a horror movie junkie. We lasted all of ten minutes before I realized this movie not only SUCKED but was not the movie I was looking forward to renting. This takes an A+ for one horrible, horrible movie. DO NOT BOTHER RENTING OR WATCHING! You'll be sorely disappointed.

Apparently, I have to have so many lines of text to rate this movie, so the next few lines are filled with nothing.

This movie sucked!

This movie sucked big green donkey dicks!

HUGE. BIG donkey dicks!

Surrealism of Sex&Crime

[hasosch · 8/10 · 7 July 2009]

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?

worst movie.... ... ever?

[cycoone · 1/10 · 19 November 2007]

I've seen bad movies, most of them are bad in a funny way. This movie is just bad, really bad. My wife bought what she thought was the theatrical release, turns out they had messed up the boxes or something. We just watched it so we haven't had time to take it back yet, but it won't stay on the shelf for long. (For a funny bad movie watch Legend of Rollerblade 7.)

Since IMDb won't let me submit a rating without writing a few more lines than this POS deserves, I'll elaborate. The scenes are repetitive to the point where fast-forwarding through all but ~10 minutes of the movie is enough not to miss anything. Cheap gore is overused, and despite it all no one on set seems to understand what a joke their movie is. Pretentious filler by wannabe artists.

Worst movie ever made.

[thehaimster · 1/10 · 14 December 2006]

Now, I am a patient man... but this version of Black Dahlia, which I mistook for the Josh Hartnett one, is unwatchable. 'A Crack in the Floor' has been replaced as the worst piece of crap I've ever seen. It has all the production value of a shoestring budget porn. I can't fart loud enough to properly express how monumentally bad this movie is. In fact, I felt a bit insulted that somebody out there found this movie was worth my hard-earned $4.50 to rent. This is just ten kinds of crap. Please don't waste your money on this wipe-out. Don't put money into the hands of someone who would think you're stupid enough to enjoy this movie.