User reviews

Edward Norton, by most film fans, has been and will always be known as one of the best actors out there. Appearing in classics like Fight Club and more modern masterpieces like Birdman, he's never been one to pick a bad project on purpose. Motherless Brooklyn marks his latest leading role, while also directing and writing. As ambitious and difficult as that is, he has pulled it off quite well. Motherless Brooklyn is a very well-made period piece.

Set in the 1950s, this film follows Lionel(Edward Norton) after the murder of his closest friend and colleague. Hellbent on discovering who the killer is, he finds himself on a paper trail across Brooklyn, never giving up on his plan. Being someone who also happens to suffer from Tourette Syndrome, he is a character that has a lot of depth to get behind. Personally, this particular character needed a great performance in order to be authentic, which is where this film shines the most.

It's been a while since I've seen Edward Norton this committed to delivering a powerful performance. There are hardly any instances where he feels like he doesn't actually suffer from this condition. His devotion is what kept me engaged because the overall story does slightly meander at times. At nearly two and a half hours, this film can feel its length at times, but that's simply due to the fact that this movie cares about its characters and spends a lot of time on long conversations, some of which do lead to revelations though.

Based on a book, this screenplay here definitely feels inspired and the voiceover work by Norton calms the viewers throughout, making for a sort of relaxing experience. In addition to that, the use of classical and jazz music is so much in the forefront that it nearly became a character of its own in the film. I really admired that aspect. Still, the overall movie doesn't leave too much for the audience to figure out, since the narration does lend a hand.

In the end, Motherless Brooklyn is a really, really solid crime mystery that has the perfect setting and feel for this sort of premise. I found myself completely engrossed in this world and was eager to see where the movie ended up. Edward Norton gives an award-worthy performance and his direction only adds to that, making for a great overall movie. Motherless Brooklyn may be meant for a more mature audience as it is quite niche in terms of the nature of the story, which may lend itself better to an older crowd. Even so, I quite enjoyed myself.

If you couldn't keep up with Chinatown's and LA Confidential's plot and continuous placing and connecting of characters' names associated with civic and political corruption then Motherless Brooklyn will have you drowning in it.

That's why I give it a seven rating. It's almost 2 1/2 hours of figuring out what's going on and who's doing it, but at least the look and sound of the movie provides a huge respite with the best sounding Bee Bop jazz and lush background theme soundtrack I've ever heard in a movie.

As a photographer I thought the cinematography was stunning in color and composition, less film noir and more '50's style New York street Kodachrome photography with compositions of odd reflections and angles interspersed smoothly with the flow of the narrative master shots in a style similar to Winogrand and Vivian Maier.

The variety of vintage '50's automobiles in pristine and brand new condition with the rich look of Kodachrome color is another treat. The sound of the rattle of car doors slamming is even accurate.

The first time I saw Tourette Syndrome portrayed in mainstream film was, as I imagine is the same for many others, in Deuce Bigalow. It wouldn't be the last time, however, that the portrayal was an exaggeration of coprolalia (the swearing tic), the shock value of which was used for a cheap and easy laugh.

Over the years, I've seen that many people have presumptions about this neurological disorder - understandable, given the circumstances. Unfortunately, I've also learned the hard way that many of these presumptions have been heavily (and negatively) biased towards this inferred 'swearing tic', and I can't help but feel like Deuce Bigalow, or Not Another Teen Movie, or others, have helped shape this presumption.

The presumption honestly doesn't bother me, provided the person holding the belief is willing to have a conversation with me about it. I've always been open about my Tourette, and I consider myself lucky and fortunate to have won awards, or spoken with the media, or inspired others, due to my openness and having some small success with writing and acting.

What does get to me, though, is when the people aren't willing to have a conversation with me. I've been fired from jobs once it's become known that I have Tourette, even though it hasn't affected my work. I've had dates suddenly lose interest. I've been kicked out of bars when bouncers have mistaken my tics for drug use and refused to hear any explanation without threatening violence.

So when I heard that Edward Norton would be portraying someone with Tourette Syndrome in #MotherlessBrooklyn, I was excited to see what an actor of such calibre would do with such a complex condition. And I was not disappointed.

Motherless Brooklyn is great. Adapted from the novel and written and directed for the screen by Edward himself, the film is an enthralling and charming noir detective piece peppered with big names playing relatively small roles, all of whom tell a captivating story about government corruption in 1950s New York.

Edward's presentation of Tourette Syndrome was refreshing. It was delivered with a level of maturity and respect that is seldom seen on the silver screen. And even though the condition is never outright named in the film, much like his tics, it can't be hidden from anyone watching.

And yes, his character does have coprolalia, and echolalia (the tic where you have to repeat things said), and other verbal and motor tics. And sometimes it's funny. But his tics aren't just a cheap laugh for the audience - they affect his character. A PI trying to stay unnoticed on the subway who suddenly blurts out some choice words and draws attention to himself is funny. And when he's consoling someone and can't stop touching their shoulder, it's funny. And when they reassure him that it's okay, it's endearing.

And it's okay for us to laugh at the realities of life, however absurd or uncontrollable they may be at times. Tourette Syndrome is real and sometimes it's funny and that's okay. But at least in this film, we're finally laughing at it for the right reasons. And with his portrayal, which also shows some of the positives that can come with Tourette - as opposed to just the obviously stare-inducing drawbacks - I am hopeful that this may help provide the less-aware with a better, more informed presumption about this condition.

Are there actors out there with Tourette Syndrome (and who are open about it) that could have played this role? Absolutely. Like me. But I'm not Edward Norton. And are there actors out there with Tourette Syndrome (and closeted about it) that could have played this role? Absolutely. But they are also not Edward Norton.

The issue of roles going to actors who don't live with the condition being portrayed has been a hot-button issue for many, and I do think there are instances where the role should have gone to someone else. This isn't one of those times. Actors are actors, after all - their job is to convince you that they're not pretending.

Edward was convincing. And I - and I imagine a number of others with Tourette Syndrome who have been subject to unfair or illegal treatment due, at least in part, to a sub-par late '90s movie - thank him for being so. I was fortunate enough to see this at TIFF this year, where he introduced the film. Had he stayed for a Q&A afterwards, I would have loved to have said this to him in person. But I doubt I am the first, and know I won't be the last, person to say this.

I found this film satisfying overall, but one anachronism distracted me and pulled me out of the 1950s setting. Lionel's symptoms of Tourette's syndrome, repetitive verbalizations of a rhyming nature, were accepted equanimously by everyone he encountered. No one displayed annoyance, made fun of him, or called him insulting names to cast aspersions about his intelligence. His repetitive touching of people on the shoulder as he faced them ought to have caused women to back away and men to knock his block off. They did neither. It was as if these 1950s characters had been taught the acceptance of people with disabilities that was not really commonplace until the 21st century. This is the biggest mystery in the movie.

After the end of this film, I was very grateful to Edward Norton. For the wise craft of each piece of the film. For atmosphere, music, cast, for the story and , sure , the New York of 1950. And for his Lionel Essrog. A seductive film for details, performances and for something defining a fine director. Sure, many lines of plot, to generous perspective and the end as a sort of compromise. But the good use of Alec Baldwin, Bruce Willis and Willem Dafoe is just a noble virtue. Not ignoring the job of Edward Dafoe himself and good jazz, smart use of interracial problems, the abuses for urban solutions and the reasonable solution for a delicate case. So, very subjective, a film reminding the art of Edward the Great.

Edward Norton has Tourette's Syndrome, which comes out when he is stressed, which does not include driving a car, or getting into a gunfight or walking into a strange location when you expect them to kill you. He works for Bruce Willis, who runs a detective agency out of Brooklyn. Willis gets kidnapped and shot, so Norton is the man in the shop who is supposed to track down the killer. This leads him on a tour of an alternate 1956 New York City, which seems to be populated by great actors like Willem Dafoe, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Cherry Jones, Bobby Cannavale and Alec Baldwin as a megalomaniac closely modeled on Robert Moses. One of them is the bad guy. Guess which and why.... I had it figured out four minutes before Norton did, but then, I don't have Tourette's. Still, that means it's a fair mystery.... not who, but why.

Mostly, though, it's a chance for actors to strut their stuff, and none more so than Norton, who besides having Tourette's has an eidetic memory, smokes pot to control his symptoms, and will never be rich. No one seems to be put off by his tics, including touching women, making comments which are mildly lewd, making noises while jazz musicians play, and in one scene where he is trying to light a lady's cigarette, repeatedly lighting a match and blowing it out before it can get to the cigarette. Everyone is astonishingly enlightened, except, of course, Baldwin. Being evil, he hates poor people, and Blacks in particular.

Good acting, but when I want to visit 1956 New York City, I don't want everyone there to be from 2019. Still, some great acting, some great locations, and the CGI recreation of Penn Station revives my anger towards the morons who tore it down.

The movie touches the realities of life. The story is not very special, but Edward Norton's acting made the movie marvellous

The movie recreated the 1950s NY in an amazing way. Great cast who portrayed their roles with authenticity. It had a nice leisurely pace but held on to the suspense till the end. Saw during the NYFF premier ... it was a great choice to end the 2019 festival. Would recommend the movie for anyone who can appreciate good meaningful cinema.

Motherless Brooklyn is the kind of movie Hollywood almost never makes anymore, and a complexly conceived, robust evocation of a bygone era of New York that speaks to our present moment.

It's 1950's New York. Private detective Lionel Essrog (Edward Norton) has Tourette's Syndrome. His boss and best friend is murdered while on a case. He intends to solve it and find his killers. It leads him to a series of urban gentrification efforts against the black and Latino population. A mystery man (Willem Dafoe) directs him to all powerful developer Moses Randolph (Alec Baldwin) who controls everything including the politics. He falls for Laura Rose (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) who is fighting for the minorities in the city.

I really like the story of corruption and power in city politics. It's Chinatown all over again. I wish that Edward Norton played it straight with a little more clarity in the beginning. Mostly I wish that he could get out the Tourette's. I haven't read the book and I'm not saying that he's doing it wrong. The story is so dense that more than anything, the Tourette's is distracting. It's unnecessary and it doesn't serve much. There are obvious mistakes that Lionel makes but I buy them for his character. He's smart but this is not Sherlock. All in all, I really like the crime noir story but I still want some changes.

Motherless Brooklyn is a modern film Noir about a troubled man seeking answers, exploring new worlds within familiar ones, and going toe-to-toe with violent thugs and oppressive tyrants, in the heart of New York during its blossoming years. It also just may be Edward Norton's "Sling Blade."

Some of its most noticeable achievements, are the visual and audial elements. With the gloomy, yet bustling sets, and the somber, thoughtful soundtrack, the effective lighting and mood of each shot, it's a brilliant homage to the classic Noir style. It's not even just a throwback, but could eventually be considered a monumental addition to the genre.

And the acting. Expect nothing less from such a stellar, experienced, well thought out cast. Edward Norton nailed it especially, and shines a humorous, yet wondrous and even educational light on Tourette's syndrome. Excellent performances by all.

Story-wise, it's nothing groundbreaking. But it's certainly engaging. One can tell it's no cookie-cutter script, a lot of heart went into it. Sure some may find it boring, slow, presumptuous even. Others will find it exhilarating, and refreshing. Hopefully most will find the passion, love, message, and humor in it, and also discover that it could be that movie which so many people have been wishing Hollywood would make, instead of those dry, cash-cow blockbusters that stain the very heart and art of filmmaking itself. While also being unique in its own way, it's also familiar, without being too familiar if you know what I mean.

I wish Bruce Willis was in it more, and there are some plot holes and mildly annoying coincidences, cliches, etc. These are few and far in between. While it can be difficult to follow at times, it's still quite a fantastic movie.

Those who would enjoy this movie, probably also enjoyed other titles like Chinatown, L.A. Confidential, Road to Perdition, The Sting, Double Indemnity. See it in theaters, you'll find yourself driving down Nostalgia lane in a vintage 1950's Chevy.

Enjoyable movie with funny characters. Finally a good movie to watch after so many series. If you are looking for a great noir goes somewhere else, but if you are into unpretentious good cinema you will probably like it.

Bruce is the weakest actor in this film with his wife, else, I love the journey it took me on. Great acting, humor, jazz, plot; polotics, money, vision for a city while others seeks to skim the funds, crime and investigation, all in its own special way. Watch it. Fully appreciated by watching it alone. Preferably at night haha. "If!"

Jonathan Lethem's 1999 novel Motherless Brooklyn may appear to be an old-fashioned private-eye noir, but in reality, it's about gentrification, institutionalised racism, political corruption, and how such things are woven into New York City's historical fabric. It's about how the city of today was built on the cruelty, prejudice, lies, and unchecked power of yesterday. The novel is a quintessentially postmodern narrative, fracturing the relationship between the physical and the temporal by taking the sensibilities of 1950s gumshoe noir and supplanting them into an end-of-century milieu. On the other hand, the 1957-set film is more literal, less interested in playing with form. Written for the screen, produced, directed by, and starring Edward Norton, this two-decades-in-the-making passion project asks how much corruption are we willing to forgive and whether truth and ideals even matter in a world in which there's a direct confluence between power and amorality. However, far too in reverence to films such as Chinatown (1974) and L.A. Confidential (1997), Motherless Brooklyn is never anything more than your average noir mystery - a likable but flawed protagonist begins what seems like a fairly straightforward investigation, only to be led down a rabbit hole of corruption and power games, until he's in the midst of an elaborate political conspiracy. And whilst it's aesthetically impressive (the period detail drips off the screen) and the acting is universally excellent, the film can be spectacularly on the nose and didactic. It also moves at a snail's pace, and Norton is never really able to generate any sense of urgency, making the whole thing feel laborious, and, ultimately, rather pointless.

New York City, 1957. World War II veteran Frank Minna (Bruce Willis) runs a small PI firm staffed by men whom Minna rescued from an abusive orphanage when they were still children. He's most fond of Lionel Essrog (Norton), who suffers from what we know today as Tourette Syndrome, but who also has a photographic memory. As the film begins, Essrog is listening in on a clandestine meeting between Minna and unidentified parties. When the meeting becomes contentious, tragedy strikes, and although none of Minna's staff know who he was meeting or what he was investigating, Essrog determines to get to the bottom of the case, slowly unearthing a labyrinthine conspiracy involving local government, urban redevelopment plans, and housing relocation programs.

Anyone familiar with the novel will recognise that Norton has made sweeping changes, not just in terms of relocating the story to 1957 (thus making explicit what was so indelibly postmodern in the book), but so too in terms of plot and character. The most significant addition is Moses Randolph (Alec Baldwin), a corrupt and powerful real estate magnate who's clearly based on New York's so-called "master builder" Robert Moses, the man largely responsible for the city's high-way infrastructure, the departure of the Brooklyn Dodgers to LA, the development of Long Island, and whose controversial philosophies regarding urban redevelopment continue to be implemented all over the world. Operating with almost complete autonomy from regulatory oversight, Moses was a narcissist obsessed with power, and an amoral , and so too is the character in the film. Indeed, although the film is ostensibly based on Lethem's novel, it contains more than a hint of Robert A. Caro's Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of Moses, The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York (1974).

Motherless Brooklyn's most obvious strength is its aesthetic, about which I really can't say enough. Beth Mickle's production design, Michael Ahern's art direction and Amy Roth's costume design are all exceptional, contributing to the nuanced and immersive period-specific tone, with the milieu feeling lived-in and completely authentic.

Norton's direction is, for the most part, straightforward and unfussy, but one visual motif he uses several times is shooting directly from Essrog's POV. First-person shots in cinema are infrequent enough that when a director uses the technique a few times, it stands out. What's most interesting here is when Norton uses it - three scenes in which Essrog is lying on his back either currently being beaten up, or having recently been beaten up. It's a nice (if somewhat unsubtle) directorial choice, drawing us directly into Essrog's experience, but only when he's at his most vulnerable. On the other hand, the tonally inconsistent use of dream scenes is far less effective, feeling as if they're from another film entirely.

In terms of the decision to set the film in the 50s, it actually makes sense. One of the reasons the novel works so well is because the modern setting clashes with the mannerisms of the characters, the style of the dialogue, the cadences of the plot, all of which are straight out of classic 40s and 50s noir. The effect of this is quintessentially postmodern - a self-reflexive pastiche that's drawn from both the 50s and the 90s, and yet which belongs to neither. And although this works tremendously on the page, Norton argued (correctly, I think) that to try to replicate this on film - have the story set in 2019 (or even 1999), but told in the manner of a classic noir - wouldn't work, as it would send mixed and confusing messages to the audience.

And so, he simply relocated the story to the time-period which underpins the style of the novel. With this in mind, the film features many of the trappings of classic noir - the world-weary private eye, the laconic voiceover speaking directly to the audience from an unspecified point in time, the seemingly important clues which ultimately lead nowhere, the seemingly irrelevant clues which ultimately lead somewhere, the smooth (so smooth) jazz score, the smoky (so smoky) jazz clubs, the chiaroscuro lighting (albeit very restrained), the antagonist who seems to see all, the political corruption. There's even a scene in which Essrog finds an address written on a pack of matches. About the only thing missing is a femme fatale, although there is a woman who may (or may not) know more than she's letting on.

For all its thematic importance and laudable aesthetic aspects, however, I found Motherless Brooklyn disappointing. For one thing, there's the pacing, which is so lacking in forward-momentum that the story is practically somnolent. The narrative is unfocused and flabby, needing at least one more editorial pass, occasionally doubling back on itself and wasting time giving the audience information we already possess. Partly because of this, it's a good 20 minutes too long (at least), and much of it feels like padding - characters that do nothing, clues that lead nowhere, scenes which don't advance the story or develop the characters. I understand Norton wanted to let the material breath (the novel is around 300 pages), but there's a difference between giving the characters and themes room to develop and stalling for the sake of it, and so much of the film feels like the latter.

There's also a significant disconnect between the politics and the detective story. In Chinatown, everything feels organic - the personal and the political are intertwined, with the political elements never feeling artificially shaped so as to fit a generic template, or the genre structure never feeling artificially bolstered with extraneous political elements. In Motherless Brooklyn, however, Norton is never really able to integrate the two, leading to a kind of identity crisis, with the film unable to find a comfortable middle ground - in trying to be both a noir mystery and a societal commentary, it ends up as neither. Another issue is that because the novel features 50s values displaced into the last years of the century, the endemic racism is deeply disturbing - society today is more enlightened about such things, but here's a novel in which characters are acting like it's 40 years prior despite being set in a modern milieu. This is a vital part of Lethem's postmodernist deconstruction of power structures. However, with the film set in the actual 1950s, the racism just comes across as period-appropriate window dressing, losing virtually all of its thematic potency.

An old-fashioned detective story with a lot on its mind, Norton's passion for the material is self-evident. However, that passion hasn't translated into an especially good film. Void of almost any tension, although it looks great, Motherless Brooklyn fails to unify its genre elements and its political preoccupations, resulting in a film unsure of its own identity and unable to make us care about much of what it depicts.

Get me out of this theatre before my next birthday please. Way too long. Horrible attempt at filmmaking. All the good reviews are obviously cast and crew.

I think this movie is an underrated movie. I watched this movie with my friend at the cinema. He also liked this movie very much. It's like you're reading a book. Acting performances were also good.

To be fair, Edward Norton's screenwriting and directing was top notch in terms of the general acting and performance of everyone involved. It's worth seeing, but as I said, "maybe", only because it's a slow burn and could've been accelerated in spots. The jazz in the club was great as was the authenticity of the neighborhoods. I recommend this film principally on the care that went into its development and Norton's accurate portrayal of someone suffering with Tourette's. Other than that, if you see it, that's nice. If not, no biggie.

I went into this not expecting much but Edward Norton gave till it hurt. Overall, this was a great movie with some amazing performances by Norton and his fantastic ensemble cast. So well acted by such fine actors. It's a very good murder mystery. That classic gum shoe style was done perfectly. I love the art direction. He painted a great picture of 50s style New York. And the music was stellar. Those jazz numbers really blended in perfectly with the atmosphere. Then I had that one piece of music made by Thom Yorke of Radiohead (you'll know it once you hear). This was a really great movie.

Star-studded, great period set, great dramatic close-ups, commendable acting all around but not much of a plot to go around. It doesn't measure to the hype. It's like a lot of buzz signifying not much pizzazz. The story is underwhelming.

Having said this, Edward Norton's directorial debut holds much promise. A few more films at the helm could make him a sensible and sensitive director. "If...." (no twitching please).

Edward Norton is a talented man! I was enthralled, I laughed, I screamed; I was captivated. The other big names pulled their weight Bruce Willis- "get my hat ya mook!" - was brief but effective as his role as head detective. I especially liked the morose yet determined character William Defoe played. The jazz scene was a treat. All the authentic time period cars and fine details he set, along with the lighting and framing give you what you really need and didn't know it in a movie... I hope this movie does well, but I think it's probably too great a project to gain as many accolades as it deserves! Can't wait to see what he directs next!

"Motherless Brooklyn" is a Mystery - Drama movie in which we watch a private detective afflicted with Tourette's Syndrome investigating the murder of his boss. He has to search a lot and the evidence that he will find, it will lead him to something that nobody expected.

Since I did not know what to expect from this movie, I did not have any expectations by it. I enjoyed it though because it had an interesting plot with some plot twists that I did not expect and the direction of Edward Norton was surprisingly good since he succeeded on showing and explaining very well the plot, something that helped us follow even better the flow of the movie. Regarding the interpretations of the cast, I have to admit that both Edward Norton who played as Lionel Essrog and Alec Baldwin who played as Moses Randolph were simply amazing. Some other interpretations that have to be mentioned were Gugu Mbatha-Raw's who played as Laura Rose and Willem Dafoe who played as Paul Randolph. To sum up, I have to say that "Motherless Brooklyn" is a nice and interesting mystery movie that I highly recommend everyone to watch it.

#MotherlessBrooklyn has the authenticity of a period piece like Road to Perdition combined with the corruption & intrigue of The Departed. Writer/director/actor Edward Norton paid homage to the classics in this movie. Featuring an All-Star cast, there was no way he could lose with the characters' performances. I think that is the one drawback of the film, with such a stellar cast he had to give everyone time and the movie boasts a runtime of 2:24 minutes. A bit lengthy for a crime drama/who done it because there will be slower portions of the film. However, it was never boring and the dialogue is spot-on with the snappiness of Sin City but it doesn't come across as a caricature. A very entertaining film and please don't be emo like me and cry after the opening scene.

You ever watch a movie that has everything going for it: tight script, taunt scenes, great acting throughout? Then towards the end, it fails to deliver the goods? That what MB is. Really good pacing and a classic of a who-dun-it of a murder, then splat, the ending just doesn't justify all the twists and turns the film takes the onlookers on. I know MB is based on a 1999 novel, and Ed Norton's adaptation of it couldn't have been better. But sorry, don't expect such a great payoff at the end that the rest of the movie promises.

Motherless Brooklyn is the long awaited passion project from writer/director/star Edward Norton that tells the story of a NYC Private Investigator who with Tourette's who tries to solve the murder of his mentor. It is based off of the 1999 novel of the same name and after 20 years in development has finally made it to the big screen.

Right off the bat Motherless Brooklyn boasts an incredible cast of A list actors including Bruce Willis, Willem Dafoe and Gugu Mbatha-Raw who all do a terrific job as well as our lead played by Edward Norton himself who manages to pull of this role of a man dealing with Tourette's flawlessly. If this was 1999 I could see him winning for best actor for sure.

The movie is also wonderfully detailed. Norton manages to bring the 1950s to vibrant light through the costumes and the cars and the looks. The cinematography is also fantastic. It's a beautiful looking film managing to capture the 1950s perfectly on screen. However for me this is where most of the positives end.

Motherless Brooklyn has problem with flat uninteresting characters and dialogue as well as a pace that moves incredibly slow you at times feel like your watching a 3 hours movie rather than a 2 hour 20 minute film. The films runtime and pacing completely destroy any excitement that could be found in the film.

However, with some genuinely good acting beautiful cinematography and a committed performance from Edward Norton Motherless Brooklyn ends up being a very disappointing film with some good components throughout the rest of the mess.