Motherless Brooklyn Review

 R: Language throughout including some sexual references, brief drug use, and violence 
Set against the backdrop of 1950s New York, Motherless Brooklyn follows Lionel Essrog (Norton), a lonely private detective afflicted with Tourette's Syndrome, as he ventures to solve his friend's murder. Armed only with a few clues and the powerful engine of his obsessive mind, Lionel unravels closely-guarded secrets that hold the fate of the whole city in the balance.
Production Companies: Class 5 Films, MWM StudiosDistributor: Warner Bros. PicturesRuntime: 2 Hours and 24 MinutesWriter/Director: Edward NortonCast: Edward Norton, Bruce Willis, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Bobby Cannavale, Cherry Jones, Alec Baldwin, Willem DafoeRelease Date: November 1, 2019*cue Jazz music*It was a calm and stormy night at the Rendy Reviews reviewing agency. My most trusted colleague (Myan Mercado) and I were assigned to watch Edward Norton’s latest crime mystery-noir Motherless Brooklyn, which premiered on the closing night of the 57th Annual New York Film Festival. I had a brief history with the film myself. 
Last year, on my way to work — which involved me walking through the NYU campus — I saw people in 20th-Century costumes hanging around the Washington Square Park area. I felt like I was walking through a time capsule, for there was an abundant amount of extras. I asked an older gentleman what was going on and he responded, “We’re shooting a movie for Ed Norton.” I asked, “Oh, an Ed Norton movie?” and he said, “Yeah, he’s directing. It’s called Motherless Brooklyn.” Both perplexed and surprised at the information given to me, I went on my merry way. Edward Norton directing a movie? That can’t be true. Is it his debut? Apparently not since that title belongs to his 2000 feature Keeping the Faith, which I had never even heard of until I did my own research. 19 years later, Norton has decided to return to the director’s chair for an adaptation of a 1999 mystery novel set in modern-day Brooklyn… but… the film is set in the ‘50s? That is where our case opens.While I have no context of the book outside of the basic synopsis and the era in which the story takes place, I found the route Norton decided to take to be very peculiar. The story itself is rather straightforward: set in the ‘50s, we follow Lionel Essrog (Norton), a private investigator with Tourette’s who works under the wing of his childhood friend and boss, Frank Minna (Willis), who gets whacked in a short time span. [I got two jokes set up for this. Check this out.] Much faster than the time Willis got whacked in Billy Bathgate in a similar roleYou know he wasn’t going to act, because delivering a performance is now a foreign concept to WillisAfter a simple job goes wrong and leads to Minna’s death, it’s up to Essrog to solve the mystery of who were the dirty mugs that killed his friend. All of this while uncovering the disastrous truths of the city in the process, tying into the gentrification of Brooklyn and the rule of NYC Parks Commissioner Robert Moses.With such a simple, straightforward narrative in the palm of Norton’s hand, one question kept nagging at me for the 144-minute duration of his sophomore feature: why would Norton want to set this film in the ‘50s when there’s so much material to mileage in the modern times we live in? All of the relevancy from the book and his adaptation would make for an exceptional commentary on the evolution of societal living. As a Brooklyn native living in contemporary times, I notice so much about the — in the words of one David Bowie — “ch-ch-ch-changes” around the borough. I’m talking about how many people of color get evicted due to the upcharge in rent, businesses being built, new food franchises, the MTA transportation system being more of a trap to fine poor working class folk, being more of a con than the toll on the Brooklyn Bridge would be. Those are just a few of the many social issues facing the community today. 
As every skeptic does at one point, I digressed and attempted to bask in Norton’s perspective. As far as the setting, I had to give him the credit for how well he depicted the city during the era. The production design is the area where I gravitated to the most. Norton for sure did a damn good job of meticulously scouting the most robust and secluded places around the city to give his vision of New York a classic look. There is an ample amount of vacant spaces in Bushwick that nobody even travels to, making for the perfect locations to shoot a mob scene. He takes advantage of his spaces and creatives some luxurious set pieces. Even in the scene involving activists protesting in Washington Square Park (a heavy populated place), I admired how constrained he made it seem, making sure no NYU student was in sight. Plus, the cinematography prides itself in a classic burgundy, yellowish look to compliment the crime genre and mid-20th-Century look. It’s nothing special per se, but there’s nothing distinguishable about its presentation. It’s a classic crime movie that looks like a classic crime movie and stays within its safe little bubble. Granted, despite molding modern-day NYC into this niche, the film never justifies its reasoning to be set during the ‘50s except to draw relevance to today through its characters and its cast. Casting Alec Balwdwin — now notably known as Donald Trump on SNL — as the notorious Robert Moses (even though his character’s name is Moses Randolph, but who are we kidding here), might be too on-the-nose. Especially if you research the figure, the racial hatred he spewed, and his hunger for power that swallowed him up, there’s no denying the resemblance between this character and a popular figure today. Spoiler alert: it’s Trump. Serving as both the director and central lead, Norton delivers a truly great performance. Award-worthy? Probably, but probably not. Yet, the way he depicts this character who suffers from a disability is never played for laughs or anything close to it. He exhibits it in a respectable light, proving he has done his research. The tics catch you off guard and thankfully they aren’t too emphasized, but they’re done in a sympathetic light, especially when he’s with Gugu-Mbatha Raw where he often apologizes for his uncontrollable nervous tics. While I don’t bear the same disability, I can personally relate to the notion of apologizing to everyone around you just for existing. My only problem with his depiction is how unbelievably accepting everyone around him is when he has his nervous tics. They would look at him oddly but immediately understand. The only people who it’s believable with are his coworkers and Frank’s wife, for you know they’ve been working alongside him for years, but when it comes to new people he encounters, more times than not, they’re okay with it. Like, it’s the ‘50s. Hostility was rampant everywhere long before the disease even had a title for itself.From a narrative standpoint, the film hits all the tropes of a film of its genre. With its simple plotting, you expect that the mystery would boldly tackle larger themes focusing on gentrification and corruption of power, but it hits the brakes and reverses into a much broader route leading to one of the most unsurprising twists of the year — a twist that people today wouldn’t be so surprised by.To watch a film set in the ‘50s try to speak so much on stuff that’s significant today is baffling to me. This mystery is becoming larger than I could chew my gum on. I think I've come to my final verdict on this case, but first I need a separate set of eyes to validate my upcoming consensus.I hand my notes to Myan for her oversight and individual thoughts.
I had to put on my best newsboy cap for this one. Motherless Brooklyn isn’t a bad film, but it’s not excellent either. The runtime is felt heavily and I found myself wondering when it would end, especially since the “big reveal” isn’t quite impressive enough to justify the previous 2 hours and 10 minutes. Also, Norton did that thing where he dramatically stated the movie’s title in the middle of a serious discussion. How ‘50s of him.
Norton’s performance is endearing, captivating, and well-researched. Alec Baldwin is… well… he’s Alec Baldwin, which means he’s still playing Donald Trump in this role. Leslie Mann has an interesting 4 seconds of screentime (which I had forgotten about since the movie feels like it’s 10 hours long). Gugu Mbatha-Raw is lovely and Willem Dafoe is still the Green Goblin to me after all these years. That last point wasn’t entirely necessary, but I had to let it out for the sake of my own sanity.Motherless Brooklyn is a tender homage to the city of New York, but the time period is a strange choice. As Rendy mentioned above, the gentrification theme could have easily been tackled in a modern setting. As a matter of fact, it would’ve made more sense and might have resonated more with the target audience… which is… you know… Norton’s target. The audience. Composed of people. Look, I don’t really know who this film is for. I found it rather niche as it paid tribute to crime films of decades past. It has an old-school aesthetic but tackles topics that are glaringly relevant today. So, I’m gonna put down my newsboy cap and assume that — despite the great performances — maybe this film just wasn’t for me.  
With both opinions factored in, the conclusion regarding this case is simple — as simple as this movie perhaps. Drawing way too many familiar elements in an adaptation better suited for modern days, Motherless Brooklyn is a well-performed, yet undercooked, noir that is too mediocre to justify its confused and safe ambitions. That's how case closes kid. Rating: 2.5/5 | 53%