Motherless Brooklyn?

Out in 2013 and set in ... the 1950s !!

http://variety.com/2018/film/news/bruce-willis-alec-baldwin-edward-norton-motherless-brooklyn-1202687867/

Why change the setting to the 50s?

I haven't read Lethem, but y'know, ppl complain when films adhere too closely to the book too...

In an unusually bold adaptation, writer-director-producer Edward Norton has transplanted the main character of Jonathan Lethem’s best-selling novel Motherless Brooklyn from modern Brooklyn into an entirely new, richly woven neo-noir narrative, reset in 1950s New York. Emotionally shattered by a botched job, Lionel Essrog (Norton), a lonely private detective with Tourette syndrome, finds himself drawn into a multilayered conspiracy that expands to encompass the city’s ever-growing racial divide and the devious personal and political machinations of a Robert Moses–like master builder, played by Alec Baldwin. Featuring a rigorously controlled star turn by Norton and outstanding additional supporting performances by Bruce Willis, Willem Dafoe, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Bobby Cannavale, Leslie Mann, and Cherry Jones, plus a haunting soundtrack (featuring a score by Daniel Pemberton, with orchestration by Wynton Marsalis, and an original song by Thom Yorke), 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. A Warner Bros. Picture.

Bummed that Prince's "Kiss" prob won't be in there now.

Motherless Brooklyn is the kind of movie Hollywood almost never makes anymore...A Warner Bros. Picture.

shot by Mike Leigh vet Dick Pope

I know that I liked the novel but really can't remember anything about it now. Also remember liking that Jonathan Lethem was into music

His 33 1/3 on Fear of Music is good.

We've got trailer!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fru8IkuDp_k

The casting of Alec Baldwin in that role is boring.

so fucking annoyed, why even call it motherless brooklyn

it's a Hollywood tradition

I don't expect the movie to resemble the book a whole lot outside of the plot, but at best I hoping for an L.A. Confidential-style Warner throwback and, at worst, a showcase for an Oscar campaign for Norton.

well it's a great book and would have made a unique movie and now it will never happen

ed norton acting tourettes is some kind of hell

lol

ED FONEBONE!

Waltr Chaw confirms my worst fears about this:

Edward Norton's twenty-year passion project, this adaptation of Jonathan Lethem's modern noir loses what's affecting about the source material while amplifying, well, Edward Norton. The hero, Lionel Essrog (Norton), is afflicted with OCD and Tourette's. In the book, this means that as his interior monologue is crisp and empathetic, his exterior is kissing people and screaming out anagrams and clever atrocities. In the movie, this means Norton is angling hard for awards recognition playing Rain Man as a gumshoe. I don't mean to be unkind, merely to describe a selfish performance that does very much to attract attention to itself and very little to support a cast that frankly needn't have bothered. It's the worst first date ever--the one where the guy really wants to tell you about himself. Norton's Lionel twitches, grimaces, screams out jibes that are sometimes a little too literary and on-the-mark. He draws attention and that's half the point of it: to create a sensitive, intelligent character appalled by his inability to control his "broken" brain. Yet in an ensemble movie with a Byzantine plot, all it does is suck the air out of the room. There's a shortlist of "unfilmable" novels for any number of reasons (and a few of those, like Under the Skin, were adapted beautifully), but the reasons to leave Motherless Brooklyn free from this sort of literal go are legion.

o jeez lol

This felt like two disparate stories awkwardly sewn together

I went in to this as charitable as could be. An absolute mess

in a "worth a watch" or "utterly iredeemable" sort of way?

I didn't make it to the end

Terrible