Manhattan Nocturne

Bon film !

Like most movie goers, I read the reviews from others before making the decision to spend time watching a movie. And for the small number of reviews (25 June 2016) it seemed worth tuning into. Whilst some parts of the movie didn't always maintain a strong story line it was, in essence, a movie about secrets. We all have them and to varying degrees we believe our secrets can come back to hurt us. In this movie almost everyone has a secret and depending on what that secret is, depends on the lengths they will go to, to either protect or find out the secrets of others. New York has been the backdrop for thousands of movies over the years, but this director managed to include and film the city with some very interesting shots. Like all good film noir it has a surprising and sad twist for the end, except for the very final minutes, when I wondered 'why'. This movie is well worth watching.

source: Manhattan Night

In the history of poor movie title decisions, going with "October Sky" instead of the book's provocatively titled "Rocket Boys" remains the champ but "Manhattan Night" instead of "Manhattan Nocturne" comes in pretty high. A few other decisions also plague the production. The movie's most dramatic scene where Porter Ren's 3 year old and his nanny get shot off screen. Seemingly, the scene wouldn't have been expensive to shoot and might have livened up the proceedings. Another issue, particularly for New York audiences, is the concept that somewhere in Manhattan down in a secret passageway is a suburban three bedroom house that a detective could pay the mortgage on. Otherwise, the underlying story brings some intriguing questions and fascinating twists and would make a much better book. As the only known cast member Adrian Brody makes a believable but not particularly compelling New York Post reporter. The rest of the cast is largely forgettable. In short, the strength of the story shines through a shaky production but maybe not quite enough.

One of the most offensive movies of all time. I must admit I felt the same way about BLUE VELVET at first, but later came around. Not this time. Not this one. We will be lucky, VERY lucky, if writer/director Brian De Cubellis is never involved in making another movie.Everyone involved in this disaster,this monstrosity,should be beyond disgusted with themselves. Torture.

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.

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.

This movie is for grown-ups. It is the best movie I have seen in a very long time. These days, movie are made and released so fast and so furious, and even an A-list starring actor is no indicator of quality or entertainment value. The plot is surprising, as are the twists and turns. The ending is spectacular, and unguessable. Although there are no "spine-chilling" action scenes, and the sex scenes are only R rated, the movie held my attention throughout. Maybe those persons who are associated with the movie business, or "industry" may know a "Simon Crowley," but he was a complete surprise to me. Do you suppose his character was roughly based on a Spielburg or a Ron Howard, or some other obsessive? (smile)

Because Adrien Brody is superb in this movie! Brody plays a writer/investigator for a tabloid publication and he finds himself entwined into a complex mix of thugs, power brokers, prostitution, and murder. Himself and his family become endangered by his investigation but he cannot give up on the clues he uncovers to solve a mysterious murder. This movie has a particular feel and look to it. Director/writer: Brian DeCubellis has created a film that has his signature on it ... in other words this is his movie. You feel the deceit, the lust, the grim, and ambition in each character. At two hours long some people may loose patients with this story but it's all worth it for the ending because the ending puts a finality to the murder mystery but a new emotional mystery is left unended. If you like complex mysteries with numerous dead ends for the investigator but the investigator can't give up this is a good choice!

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?