Manhattan Nocturne

Producer-director Brian DeCubellis had done some TV movies and short films before this bigger directorial effort, the neo-noir Manhattan Nights, from 2016. He certainly has talent.

The film stars Adrien Brody as Porter Wren, a columnist for a New York newspaper. His wife (Jennifer Beals) is a surgeon, so they are able to have a darling house that is hidden down an alley in Manhattan - something like Patchin Place in the west village.

When his newspaper is taken over by a Rupert Murdock type (Steven Berkoff), Porter reluctantly attends a party for him. There he meets the beautiful Caroline (Yvonne Strahovski) whose husband, well-known director Simon Crowley (Campbell Scott) was found dead, buried under the rubble of an imploded building, surrounded by pieces of jade. The two wind up having an affair.

It seems Simon was a complete weirdo with an interesting hobby of recording "honest moments" on video cards. Caroline takes Porter to a safety deposit box with dozens of them. She invites him to watch them. But it turns out one of those honest moments is being used to blackmail someone, and the person being blackmailed wants it and begins to terrorize Porter to find it. This leads to Porter uncovering secrets about Simon, Caroline, and person being blackmailed, and learning something about himself.

The film is based on an novel called Manhattan Nocturne. I suppose the name was changed because the filmmakers thought not enough people would know what a nocturne is. That's sad. The story is good but unsavory, and, frankly, so are the characters. And it has the usual female nudity.

The acting is very good, particularly from Brody and Strahovski - she is gorgeous and reminds me of Sharon Stone when she was younger. Brody has had a so-so career since winning the Oscar. This was a good role for him. Linda Lavin has a cameo, and she's excellent.

Overall I can't say I was crazy about "Manhattan Night." It was well done but unpleasant.

"I'm always running to the place where the bad thing just happened, arriving just after the danger has passed, watching from a safe distance, searching for an angle, that little wrinkle, the kick to the heart that makes you want to put down the dollar and pick up the paper."

After seeing two not so good films with Adrien Brody ("Backtrack" and "American Heist") I noticed that sad look of him on the cover of "Manhattan Night". It might sound weird, but every time I see Brody's facial expression on a cover, at once a sense of gloom and sadness overtakes me. Examine once again the cover from "Backtrack" and that of, lets say, "Wrecked". Every time you see a person filled with melancholy. With those sad puppy eyes and a grim facial expression. He stares at you with a helpless and beseeching look. The man exudes melancholy.

Despite his distinctive physical traits, he reminded me of Jake Gyllenhaal hunting for sensational news in "Nightcrawler". The same profession, the same eagerness and the same melancholy look. The only major difference is that Porter Wren already had his victory moment in the past when a young girl was found after his journalistic work. Hence, he still takes care of a daily column in the New York Daily News. Even though the new owner of this newspaper isn't very enthusiastic about it. At first you might say that Porter is a boring and rational person. But then again, he hasn't taken Caroline Crowley (Yvonne Strahovski) into account. The moment he sees her at a party, he's lost and he becomes entangled in the seductive web of this blond vamp. Caroline's interest in Porter is also of a practical nature. She wants to use Porter's "Sherlock Holmes" skills to investigate the suspicious death of her husband Simon Crowley (Campbell Scott).

You'll experience something similar like "Basic Instinct" with Brody acting as a sort of Poirot who's persistent in solving a case. In addition, he has to deal with a case of extortion, so the whole thing gets even more complicated. A story full of intrigue and erotically charged scenes. Brody's daily column is about other people's misery. It looks like he's becoming the main character in such a column. Although all my attention should be drawn to the stormy affair between Porter and Caroline and the complicated developments gripping Porter, my attention went to the rather extravagant personality of Crowley. A slightly deranged movie producer with some absurd traits. A real weirdo with a weird sense of humor. Such a person who pretends to having commit suicide after swallowing a large number of pills. And then he gets up calmly and says it was just a joke. And a highly attractive, breathtaking erotic blonde falls in love with such an eccentric who looks like a bum? Women are unfathomable and inapprehensible. But the acting of Campbell Scott was beyond dispute extremely brilliant.

All in all not a bad movie. Not bad at all. But not a high flyer either. Turn it into a black and white film and you can place it between other Hollywood classics which are shown on a pay-per-view television-channel. It won't be noticed. You can call this film stylish though. "Manhattan Night" pretends to be a neo-noir film with a mystery build into. But in the end it isn't really mysterious.

More reviews here : http://bit.ly/1KIdQMT

I am on a hot streak this year regarding indie films noir. This is the fourth I've seen and it's the best so far. I know, I know, I said that about "The American Side", but this one's even better. But I don't think you can see it, at least in the NYC area - it got here on a Thursday, I saw it on Monday, and it's leaving on Wednesday; 7 days exposure, and in only one theater.

In a nutshell; Porter (Adrien Brody) writes a column in a tabloid and covers accidents and murders. He meets Caroline (Yvonne Strahovski) at a party and tells him she has a problem, but he must come to her apartment to get the details. Her husband, a kinky movie director, was recently murdered and it is still unsolved. He volunteers to help. The publisher of his paper also enlists his help to find a compromising tape made of him. (of course, there is a connection).

The plot and script is as good as it is absorbing. "Manhattan Night" starts off slowly for the first 40 minutes, but the last hour is riveting. And I can guarantee you've never seen a more offbeat story. Adrien Brody is perfect as a noir detective (in this case, a writer) and Ms. Strahovski is a knockout as well as a very competent actress. Too bad you won't be able to see this one.

Film Noir like I like them. Even though there is not much action the movie is enjoyable to watch. It's all filmed at a slow pace, also with the calm narrating voice, but that's what this movie needs. It's a mystery drama that starts slow but once you're into the story it all gets better. The strange relationship between husband and wife Caroline and Simon Crowley played by Yvonne Strahovski and Campbell Scott is not the average day-to-day relationship and this is what makes the movie interesting. Add on that that Yvonne Strahovski is a candy for the eye. Adrien Brody plays like most of his roles, never flamboyant but always performing good. His character this time is also a very calm person that just tries to figure out some mysteries and solve some problems. But don't expect much action because there is hardly any, and the story doesn't really need action anyways. The story is strong enough for that. A good movie night assured.

Manhattan Nights has that feeling of classic film noir from the start. Substituting a modern day investigative reporter for the private eye is a fit. It fairly quickly turns into a disturbing darkness - as in somewhat uncomfortable to watch. Nothing really tells the viewer where this might go and it piles on quite a bit of weirdness thanks to the intersection of our reporter, Brody, with a femme fatale widow who knows how to use her looks for manipulation. It becomes a downward spiral for the reporter who, though you "might" want him to end up OK he's thoroughly maddening.

Gobs of mystery is piled on without a clear idea of what's going on. This is a good hook because like watching a blurry image you believe it will, eventually, come into focus. For this viewer it's the last quarter of the movie that feels too hard to believe making that final clarity hollow.

Maybe a couple that was super strange could pull down a wealthy tycoon and an egotistical writer? The problem, as I see it, is not nearly believable enough in the final analysis for the genre.

By the other reviews here I think there's a good number of folks that do not share my opinion. That's probably good since I'm not claiming to be right. It's just one person's take. Not having read the book I didn't know what to expect anyway. Actually I thought it had good acting and cinematography which held promise, I just couldn't buy into the story when it was finally revealed. The story (writing), therefore for me, ended up being the let down.

In the final analysis you may also feel manipulated as a viewer, or not?