The Night Clerk (2020)

The Night Clerk is a 2020 American crime drama film written and directed by Michael Cristofer. It stars Tye Sheridan, Ana de Armas, John Leguizamo Abdul Helen Hunt. The film follows the story of front desk clerk at a hotel that is suspected of a murder that happens after his shift.

Bart Bromley is a twenty- three year old man with Aspergers Syndrome who lives with his mom, Ethel. He works as a front desk clerk at night at a local hotel. He studies guests staying at the hotel with hidden cameras to help with his social skills. At home in his room, he has several screens set up to watch what he records from work. The videos start out innocent, but take a dark turn when he witnesses a man hit a woman and the murder of another female guest.

He meets a young lady, Andrea Rivera, who is a guest at the hotel and after spending hanging with her for the next few days, he becomes infatuated with her, even going the length to buy a new a car, get a haircut and dress clothes. But his work goes down the drain when he sees her with another man and becomes jealous. He soon forgives her after she cones to him at the front desk saying it was over with the man. She leads him, first acting a friend, then flirts with him and leaves with another man, that Bart knows is the murderer of the other lady.

Bart is found sitting on the bed of crime scene room when his coworker finds him and tells him not to touch anything, he’s going to call the police. Bart disobeys him, touching the blood of the dead woman, taking the chip out of his hidden camera and other things, leaving his fingerprints as evidence, as wel as the blood on his shirt. Because of this, police consider him a likely suspect.

Bart loses his job, confronts the man Andrea has been seeing, after catching him hurt her in her hotel room. Andrea and Bart escape to his house, where he shows her the hidden camera footage. She decides to play it safe and stay the night with Bart. Bart awakes to find her gone.

There have been many films involving autistic characters, some better than others. Some hit the nail on the head as far as mannerisms, lifestyle, etc., but many stereotype. This film gets Aspergers almost perfectly. Tye Sheridan is outstanding as Bart Bromely, portraying a socially awkward, autistic young man so well, making him seem like a real person. Helen Hunt is great as his mother Ethel Bromely, who is a little bit of sheltering mother, but also protective and loving. Ana de Armas is also great as Andrea Rivera, who plays with Bart’s mind throughout the film. John Leguizamo is fantastic as Detective Espada, who at first is iffy about making Bart a likely suspect, because of his disability, but is forced to do it.

Autistic people have trouble reading people’s emotions and the often have trouble understanding what a person has said. The often act or say inappropriately as well. Bart is prime example of that. He knew it was wrong to tamper with the evidence, but he wanted to get the camera and the footage out. He didn’t realize that Andrea was just playing him and trying to frame him until closer to the end of the film.

While the acting is superb in this movie, it does focus a little too much on Bart, his condition and him being likely guilty by police, rather than trying to find more evidence and reasons to arrest or not arrest him. This film starts out rather slow, but does pick up, other scenes are pretty slow too. You want Bart to get over Andrea, but he can’t, that’’s the way he thinks. He tries so hard to be more social, but it doesn’t always work.This isn’t action packed, but some scenes are pretty intense, some disturbing

You don’t have to relate to Bart or know anyone with Aspergers to enjoy this film. Although I don’t think is movie is fantastic, it is pretty good. It makes you wonder about howe disabled people get accused of crimes they didn’t commit. The acting is great, but there could have been a little less Andrea and Bart’s crush on her, could’ve been focused on less, it’s a crime drama, not a romance. I didn’t love this film, nor did I hate it. It was only petty good, because it did need some changes to be excellent. 18 & up 3.5/5

Classic of the Week: 12 Angry Men (1957)

12 Angry Men is a 1957 American courtroom drama film directed by Sidney Lument, adapted from a teleplay of the same name by Reginald Rose. The film tells the story of a jury of 12 men as they debate on the conviction or acquittal of an 18 year old defendant on the basis of reasonable doubt, forcing the jurors to question their own values and principles.

This film is almost completely filmed in the jury room, with the jurors debating, getting angry, bickering, pounding table, yelling, pacing and getting in each other’s faces. They take breaks, then go back to deliberating. The acting is great. Some may find the it boring that the film is filmed in one room and the jurors just get mad and debate for an hour and thirty-six minutes. They may also find the plot not very unique or gripping. Younger people especially, may not appreciate this movie much, if at all and will probably find it very boring.

This film isn’t exactly exciting. It’s a bit boring at times. There are moments when the movie is getting very slow, then suddenly it gets interesting when a juror yells or pounds his fist on the table. This film would have been more compelling if it had been filmed in more than one room, wasn’t just about the jurors but the other people in the court during this case. But then again, it wouldn’t be called 12 Angry Men.

This isn’t the most boring movie, but it isn’t the most moving either. Hearing the men debate and their take on the conviction is the most intriguing thing about this film. This is a simple film with a deep storyline, that just needs to be simple, but not so lackluster set.

The men get angry from being cooped up for hours at a time in one room together having one big debacle over whether the defendant is guilty or not of stabbing his father. If the boy is found guilty, he will receive a death penalty. Many jurors argue against whether that is ethical or not.

I can’t say this movie is well done, because it’s so basic the way it was filmed, but it’s not awful. Good, not great is all I can say about it. If had been filmed more detailed, as in sets, not just a set, maybe seen the actual trial going on, then it would have probably been outstanding. Just because the acting is great, doesn’t always mean the film is excellent too. You have to have a balance of everything being really good and this motion picture maybe an oldie, but it’s definitely not a goldie. 17+ 3.5/5