Manhattan Nocturne

Adrein Brody plays a washed up newspaper journalist whose claim to fame came from finding a missing girl, when even the police ran out of options. In hopes of finding another hit to keep his career alive, he accepts an invention from a beautiful woman to figure out her husband's death, but as he gets deeper evolved it complicates his life greatly.

Thought the actual crime is not that interesting, I was more taken by how the narrative was laid out while Brody was driving the wheel. He has a way of getting you into the mix of everything that was going on, some of his best work in a while.

I also loved the modern day film noir accepts I saw in the film. A very modern day twist of the crime orientated genre, with Brody deep in trouble with the Femme Fatale, played by Yvonne Strahovski, and modern day elements added to it. Yvoone's character Caroline's recently dead husband was a abusive filmmaker who documented everything, which was a big drive to the movie's story.

The overall crime was pretty weak but yeah, the whole movie with Brody as the centerpiece was done brilliantly

"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

This very dark and erotic noir just contained too many incredulous and far-fetched plot elements for my liking. There seemed to be a better movie lurking within this one that never really came together and emerged.

Adrien Brody is fine as Porter Wren, the poker-faced investigative reporter and columnist for a daily New York City newspaper. When he's unable to resist the seductive advances of the gorgeous Caroline Crowley, portrayed by Yvonne Strahovski, Porter will find himself being led down a path of dark and demented secrets that will cost him dearly.

All in all, this movie, written and directed by Brian DeCubellis, based on a novel by Colin Harrison, had enough intrigue to keep me interested for the most part, but it seemed to fall apart as it progressed, with the filmmaker choosing shock value over plot elements that might have enhanced the story.

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.

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?