Manhattan Night

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.

Crime, drama, mystery... no action. Not easy to make a good movie of such genre nowadays. And when reading story-line, one might think "haven't we seen them all?". Yes, we probably did.. but this one belongs to good ones.

Main role suits Adrien Brody perfectly. His "average guy" appearance gives the movie certain authenticity. But then, he never disappointed me. I never heard of Yvonne Strahovski before, though. In this movie however, she reminded me on Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct. Difference being, Yvonne doesn't appear that cool'n'smart -which is only good in this case.

Story, in general, is not that new. But it has interesting plot, which is presented very good and kept my attention all the time. Now, even this movie is categorized (also) as mystery, I wouldn't say there's any. There are just things we don't know till the end of movie. OK, I admit, I found relationship between Ivonne and her husband kinda "weird"...

And finally, movie ending. In my opinion, it's perfect!

So, if you like this genre and you're in the right mood, I recommend to give it a try. I give 8 stars.

Despite Adrien Brody pitching us his solid take on a New York columnist, his character is very much written in the Philip Marlowe private eye vein, the famous character by hard boiled crime detection novelist Raymond Chandler. Both characters share an obsessive nature, both get beaten up at least once and both do their best work at night in seedy places.

Yvonne Strahovski was born to a play a femme fatale and she is magnificent in this film. Shot entirely in New York, its NYC credentials extend to its quality supporting players like Jennifer Beals and Broadway star Campbell Scott. All four really gel. Campbell Scott is great at playing morally ambiguous or slightly crazy characters and he does both here to great effect. Of course the seedy back streets of NYC also feature. Describing the plot would give too much a way, but its one of those great neo noir films where everyone is guilty of something and everyone seems to teeter on the edge of betraying somebody else. Recommended for everyone, but neo noir fans in particular.

"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

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?