Reviews

I don't even know how much I can write about this artsy little film. I went into it only knowing that it was written and directed by a Columbine survivor.

So why did it seem so unrealistic?

The acting, for the most part, was very after-school-TV-special. I can only imagine that most of the "teen" actors were chosen for their ability to cry on command. And Tom Arnold's superb performance is not only crammed into the beginning of the movie, but never thought of again (shame!). In fact, of the at least fifteen people killed in the massacre (look at the number of crosses put up!), April seems to be the only one who "matters" - her funeral at the end is full of clichés ("she lived every day to the fullest" - come on, now) and she's really the only victim mentioned by name at all.

The first half-hour of the movie is chaos. People are running everywhere and there are some gunshots, but where's the shooter? Does anyone care? The dialogue is usually either so inept or so muffled and quiet that I couldn't make out why hordes of kids were running through the woods. And I find it very, very hard to believe that of all the "survivors" in the school, not one of them could identify the shooter. It all seemed like an afterthought.

From what I could gather of the "police investigation," the cops are seen arresting a kid named Ben and asking Sean (our greasy "hero") a few questions about him. Well - surprise, surprise! - Ben's not the shooter. In fact, he was with Sean during the whole ordeal! (This is the problem with changing such a key fact about the case: Columbine shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold took their own lives after the massacre. What do you do with a still-living shooter whom apparently nobody has seen? Well, if you're the characters in this film, you sit around and mope, then spray-paint "KILLER" on the house of some kid rumoured to have something to do with it. Again: come on, now.)

The cinematography is worth mentioning - the whole movie is filmed very artistically. I probably would've liked it more if I'd simply watched it without audio!

I couldn't identify with most of the characters. Why make brooding Sean the hero if all you want to do is film him shirtless, staring out a window on a rainy day? Ooh, he punches a mirror. Aah, he can't form a meaningful connection with a girl. Who cares?

April's not much better. Ooh, look at how pretty and blonde she is! Aah, she even writes in a diary! Too bad she has absolutely no character traits. No positive ones, no negative ones. She's just... there.

Jason was interesting (save for his melodramatic freak-out in the grocery store), and I would've liked to see more of Ben. It broke my heart at the end of the movie to see Ben packing his stuff and leaving... how do you get over being falsely branded a killer? Too bad it's all glossed over in favour of more languorous scenes of Sean moping.

Everything interesting, in fact, is glossed over (like the great performances by Tom Arnold and Ileana Douglas). I can only handle a few minutes' worth of weepy B.S. - with "April Showers," I got an hour and forty-four.

For crime scholars and others interested in knowing more about Columbine and the psychology of school shooters, skip this one and watch a documentary or something instead (I'd recommend "Zero Day," a mockumentary that's chilling, darkly funny, and ultimately heart-wrenching). For young people who think their parents "just don't understand what they're going through" and enjoy long, prettily-shot takes of shirtless guys staring off into infinity, I'd say pick this one up.

"The Black Dahlia"... was a masterfully filmed, impeccably scored version of an already-flawed novel.

James Ellroy's rambling noir-detective story was hard to put down. I just finished it today, and as a casual Dahlia-phile, I was impressed by his attention to detail and his gripping way of tying real life with fiction in a way that no reader forgets.

The film version brightened some bits that I didn't like about the book: Lee Blanchard (in a lovely turn by Aaron Eckhart) is much more fleshed out, for one. (One scene in particular, after Kay chucks the Dahlia's entire case file down the porch stairs and leaves Blanchard to scramble for the papers, broke my heart. Eckhart was perfectly pathetic as the tortured detective.)

And one angle that De Palma added was significantly missing from the book... a glimpse of the Dahlia, Elizabeth Short, while she was alive. Her "screen tests," played to sad perfection by Mia Kirshner, offer an innocent side to the victim. Ellroy's novel paints the Dahlia as a starry- eyed, lying tramp who opened her legs for a nickel. All we hear of her is what Bucky pieces together from all the men she entertained and the girls she tricked with. Glimpses of Betty Short in her attempts to audition, and her pained face during a stag film, were real highlights of the movie.

Now for the bad stuff:

De Palma's "Dahlia" is a grossly over-simplified version of the novel. DO NOT watch this movie without reading the book first; no crack goes unfilled in the book. A faithful film adaptation would've lasted six hours, but every niche would've been explained. Every mention of Mexico is omitted (Tijuana is originally where the Lorna/Betty stag film was supposedly shot, and where Lee Blanchard is murdered], but in the interest of time, the locales shrunk and the time frame was squeezed from two years into a couple of months.)

Speaking of the killing of Lee Blanchard, that scene had to be the most contrived, unwatchable piece of garbage I've seen since "Rocket Science". Apropos of nothing, out of character, and nothing like the book at all. Bucky's "Fire and Ice" bit later, before Lee's body is incinerated, was a nice touch, though.

The entire end of the movie was rife with symbolism, but odd, incorrect, and left me questioning: Ramona and Madeleine live in the novel. Why shed excess blood for a movie? And wouldn't Bucky get caught at the end? His happy return to Kay isn't so happy if the police are coming for him. Was that the point?

The Linscotts (the Spragues in the novel) and their role in the Dahlia plot went mostly unsaid, though the big reveal at the end was neat, cinematography-wise. I didn't enjoy the actress who played Ramona AT ALL; her "hopheadedness" was so overplayed. But her face at the end, when she mimicked the slicing of Betty Short's face, tied in marvelously with the clown painting and the silent film at the beginning... making for a horrific yet interesting four-way parallel (Ramona, Betty, the film, and the painting). Looking at the Linscotts/Spragues and their involvement with the Dahlia, it takes reading the book AND watching the movie to get the whole effect: that Georgie's and Ramona's torture and murder of Betty Short was their twisted way of enacting how they feel about their bastard daughter Madeleine, the Dahlia's spitting image.

Speaking of casting: I LOVED Josh Hartnett as Bucky Bleichert. He was perfect, perfect, perfect. Aaron Eckhart brought some warmth to a two-dimensional character. I also liked the guys who played Ellis Loew and Russ Millard; having read the book (where their characters are WAY more present), their characterisation was spot-on.

Hillary Swank was too old to play Madeleine. Too old and too campy; what was with that accent? And Scarlett Johansson's performance was wooden at best. The '40s-era dialogue sounded forced coming from her.

Overall, my independent Dahlia research combined with reading the book and watching this movie enriched my knowledge of the case and made me look at all of Ellroy's and De Palma's symbolism from a million different vantage points. I would only recommend one in conjunction with the other two.