Your thoughts on Motherless Brooklyn?

How does it compare to Inherent Vice, a modern noir I really like? I'm watching it in three weeks when it comes out here in Brazil.

Probably the dullest passion project of all time... can't believe Norton has been trying to make this for 20 years and this is what he churned out.

Muddled, boring plot... and when it's "wrapped up" in the end it's barely shrug-worthy. Norton really should have gotten someone, anyone else... to direct it. His performance is solid but it seems like he was half-asleep as a director for the majority of the movie. And the damn thing is probably 40 minutes too long. And the Tourette's... idk. A lot of a time it's played for laughs, a few times it makes you depressed... but overall, pretty useless.

But it's not all bad.......... lol. There were a few stretches that I was into it and thought it might lead somewhere interesting. The score was good, there were a few solid noir-ish shots by Dick Pope (though the majority of it looked off/not '50s enough), and there was a strong scene involving a few potted plants.

5/10... and let's please not refer to this as "hardboiled."

my interest begins and ends with Thom Yorke

Definitely love the jazz influence from those horns paired with that piano melody dripping in nostalgia and Thom's mournful (almost wailing) vocals. I like it even more than Suspirium. Much more actually. I doubt I'll hear another original song this year that'll top it in my lineups. It's so poignant.

It's beautifully shot by Dick Poop and the music is impressive (if a tad repetitive), and it's clear it's a labor of love for Norton . . . but it also feels kinda pedestrian and "been there, done that." Noirs tend to dip into the "big real-estate developer" well, and while that doesn't bother me generally, I feel like this just felt like a pallid rehash of those plots, rather than trying for its own unique voice. I also found Norton's tics aggravating beyond measure; it's hard to portray something like that without it feeling either like an actor's crutch or just a ridiculous affectation, but it fell both ways here for me. Shame, too, because he is giving it his all, even if I feel he's fifteen years past his prime as the character. (I also feel like Dallas Roberts, who plays Danny in the movie, would've been a better choice for Lionel; he's got that milquetoast schlub act down-pat and I feel like he's compulsively watchable without needing to try as hard.)

Also, and I think this is my biggest problem with the film:

For the positives: Gugu shines in a thankless role, Baldwin does a better Trump impression here than he does on SNL, Dafoe is a wild-eyed delight (though no patch on the old seadog), and who doesn't love Michael K. Williams and Robert "Bunny Colvin" Wisdom? All in all, it's a decent enough stab at a noir and Norton's direction is strong, but not necessarily inspired.

I'll echo everyone else by scratching my head that this was the end result of such a long passion project. Hell, I remember talking about this on the original OB board back in 2006. Outside of the costume design, Dafoe and Daily Battles (which was very overused), everything else is forgettable.

Edward Norton's passion project. I liked it. It was really done with a lot of love and much detail. Maybe sometimes a bit too much detail as it dragged a little bit. How is Edward Norton the director? He perfectly recreated the atmosphere and look of the New York of this period. He created a great old fashioned Film Noir ( I think if he had decided to do the film in black and white it would have had an even great impact). He is solid but as mentioned before the pacing wasnt always perfect.
How is Edward Norton the writer? Well, the screenplay was one of the weakest aspects. Mostly due to the screenplay. It wasn't bad at all dont get me wrong, it was just not.... really anything special. Characters were fine, but missed some edge. Story could have been crafted a bit better. Just little things but I guess with a co writer he could have done wonders. How is Edward Norton the actor? Awesome. Fantastic performance. This is were his true talent lies and he proves that once again. A great performance, a special character. Typically Norton. Nailed.
The rest of the cast is good as well. I liked Gugu Mbatha-Raw, but I guessed her character lacked something. The best performances next to Norton came from Alec Baldwin and Willem Dafoe who were both memorable and outstanding in their way. Baldwin even more than Dafoe, as Dafoe got only to shine in the last third of the film.
Bruce Willis had a good cameo as well (for which he was second billed.. oh well) The score direction was interesting . using a jazz score really fitted the atmosphere. The film could have been shorter at least 20 minutes and I think than it would have been the masterpiece it deserved to be and Edward Norton deserved to have after all those years in development hell.

Current nominations:

Best Production Design


Rating: 8/10

back in my day motherless was a website

Why was this film so long in development before it got green-lit? Perhaps nobody wants to work with Norton? Nonetheless, it was just too long of a picture which could drag a viewer to being exhausted. Not a good job of editing & wish it had a bit more action. Let this be a learning experience if Norton wants to continue to direct down the road.

Watched this today and I liked it. First of all, the score and Thom's song not getting nodded is crazy. The best score I've heard from last year and there was a really good one in 1917.

I liked the performances overall, Norton doesn't give a career best performance or anything but is still excellent and Willis and Baldwin are good. I'm generally one to want to trim movies but I thought the length was fine here and can't think of much specifically I'd want to cut. I'd heard the criticism of the period stuff seeming "off" and was expecting to agree based on the screenshots I'd seen but I thought it worked fine.

I liked how the Tourette's sort of subverts the detective genre in a way. There'd be moments where if this were a Bogart movie he'd do something cool (like in the scene with the cocktail waitress) but then he shouts out something strange so it isn't cool. I like playing with genre like that and using the conventions of a genre but taking the glamour away.

There were a few pretty shots and I liked the little splashes of surrealism but I think I agree with others that Norton should have gotten someone else to direct it for him. A more distinctive directorial voice is what could have taken this from good to very good. I do agree with the criticisms of the "happy" ending too-



Still an 8/10 and a good movie. I'm probably torn between it and 1917 as my favorite of last year but I didn't like last year that much.