User reviews

Ben Affleck's new movie could best be described as "sprawling". In both directing and writing the screenplay (based on a novel by Dennis Lehane), Affleck has aimed for a "Godfather" style gangster epic and missed: not missed by a country mile, but missed nonetheless.

Morally bankrupted by his experiences in the trenches, Joe Coughlin (Affleck) returns to Boston to pick and choose which social rules he wants to follow. Not sociopathic per se, as he has a strong personal code of conduct, but Coughlin turns to robbery walking a delicate path between the warring mob factions of the Irish community, led by Albert White (the excellent Robert Glenister from TV's "Hustle"), and the Italian community, led by Maso Pescatore (Remo Girone). Trying to keep him out of jail is his father ("Harry Potter"'s Brendan Gleeson) who – usefully – is the Deputy Police Chief. Life gets complicated when he falls in love with White's moll, Emma Gould (Sienna Miller). The scene is set for a drama stretching from Boston to the hot and steamy Everglades over a period of the next twenty years.

Although a watchable popcorn film, the choppy episodic nature of the movie is hugely frustrating, with no compelling story arc to glue all of the disparate parts together. The (often very violent) action scenes are very well done and exciting but as a viewer you don't feel invested in a 'journey' from the beginning of the film to the (unsatisfactory) ending. In my experience it's never a good sign when the writer considers it necessary to add a voice-over to the soundtrack, and here Affleck mutters truisms about his thoughts and motives that irritate more than illuminate.

The sheer volume of players in the piece (there are about three film's worth in here) and the resulting minimal screen time given to each allows no time for character development. Unfortunately the result is that you really care very little about whether people live or die and big plot developments land as rather an "oh" than an "OH!".

Affleck puts in a great turn as the autistic central character whose condition results in a cold, calculating demeanor and a complete lack of emotion reflecting on his face. Oh, hang on… no, wait a minute… sorry… I've got the wrong film…. I'm thinking about "The Accountant". I don't know whether he filmed these films in parallel. I generally enjoy Ben Affleck's work (he was excellent in "The Town") but for 95% of this film his part could have been completed by a burly extra with an Affleck mask on. In terms of acting range, his facial muscles barely get to a "2" on the scale. Given the double problem that he is barely credible as the "young man" returning mentally wounded from the trenches, then in my opinion he would have been better to have focused on the writing and directing and found a lead of the likes of an Andrew Garfield to fill Coughlin's shoes.

That's not to say there is not some good acting present in their all but brief supporting roles. Elle Fanning ("Trumbo", "Maleficent") in particular shines as the Southern belle Loretta Figgis: a religious zealot driving her police chief father (Chris Cooper, "The Bourne Identity") to distraction. Cooper also delivers a star turn as the moral but pragmatic law-man.

Sienna Miller ("Foxcatcher") delivers a passable Cork accent and does her best to develop some believable chemistry with the rock-like Affleck. Zoe Saldana ("Star Trek") is equally effective as a Cuban humanitarian.

In summary, it's sprawlingly watchable… but overall a disappointment, with Affleck over-reaching. One day we surely will get a gangster film the likes of another "Godfather", "Goodfellas" or "Untouchables". Although this has its moments, unfortunately it's more towards the "Public Enemies" end of the genre spectrum.

(For the graphical version of this review please visit bob-the-movie-man.com. Thanks.)

Producer, director, writer and lead actor: Ben Affleck.

Let's look at those contributions one by one.

Producer. The film looks good. There's an expert team on both sides of the camera. But there's a problem with length. Also, it feels as though the adaptation from Dennis Lehane's novel has not sufficiently transformed what was on the page into cinematic story-telling.

Director. There are excellent action sequences, such as an exciting car-chase and a final shoot-out. As a director of actors Mr Affleck is strong: he elicits particularly striking work from Chris Messina, Elle Fanning, Remo Girone and Sienna Miller. Within scenes there's a reassuring sense of control of pace. But overall, there is a sense of the director being in thrall to the screenplay.

Writer. This is the weakest link. It feels in awe of its source material. I read that an entire strand of the book was removed for the purposes of the film, but this was not enough. The producer and/or the director needed to tell the writer to put it through another draft. Or put it in its current form on Netflix as a two-part drama.

Lead actor. A matter of taste, I guess. Mr Affleck's persona is always of a handsome man who knows he's handsome, and who is very pleased with himself about it. I find this insufferable in large doses. And there is a very large dose of it here. Mr Affleck's performances lack depth -- compare and contrast those of this amazing brother Casey. As far as I'm concerned, Mr B. Affleck is more a male model than an actor: in James Bond terms, he's a George Lazenby rather than a Daniel Craig. His best film performance is his self-parodying turn in 'SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE'. In LIVE BY NIGHT he is serviceable, nothing more. His director clearly couldn't get anything else out of him.

It's instructive to compare Ben Affleck to Clint Eastwood, who also has a limited -- maybe even more limited -- range as an actor. But Eastwood the director usually casts Eastwood the actor brilliantly. DIRTY HARRY, UNFORGIVEN,GRAN TORINO etc: who could be better? By contrast, there are many young actors who could have played the lead in LIVE BY NIGHT, and many writers who could have delivered a better screenplay, especially when guided by a strong producer and director. Time will tell whether Ben Affleck is as good in those last two departments as ARGO suggested he might be. The promise he showed in those areas in that film is not in evidence here.

Had he not taken the lead role, perhaps this would have truly worked, but the strengths of the film outweigh the weaknesses, As a Boston boy, Affleck is always believable, as a gangster, I'm not so sure. In a world full of Marvel movies it isn't really a surprise that the initial audience gave it a thumbs down. I am pretty sure that in the long run its reputation will improve.

"Maybe it's true. We all find ourselves in lives we didn't expect. But what I learned was powerful men don't have to be cruel."Joe Coughlin (Ben Affleck)

Yet in the best of gangster, powerful men like Michael Corleone and Henry Hill are cruel, no matter how gentle their exteriors. So it seems with Joe Coughlin, a prohibition "bandit," as he calls himself, who doesn't think of himself as a gangster ("I don't wanna be a gangster. Stopped kissing rings a long time ago."). Yet he kills or has others killed in the name of moving toward heaven.

Although beautifully appointed and set in Florida and Cuba, writer/director Affleck's crime story misses the weight of crime films, which casually juxtapose the serious with the not so. It lacks the sass of Pulp Fiction and the gravitas of The Godfather with not much of their verbal gymnastics or irony.

Joe wanting to be a saint while being a sinner requires an actor of considerable resources, which Affleck showed a modicum of recently in the Accountant because it required him to be affectless. He brings that same stolid mien to this film and endangers the edge necessary for the success of actors like Al Pacino. Like Affleck, the film is listless except when Tommy Guns take charge.

As Joe navigates from a low-rent lover, Emma (Sienna Miller), to a classy love, Graciella (Zoe Saldana), director Affleck spends too much time on their embraces and too little on what makes him love them so passionately. He does love his own image as his abundance of self close-ups testifies. Maybe there is no passion, just old affectless Affleck.

It's dumping time in Hollywood, and Live by the Night is a classic example of why smart studios dump dull movies in January. It's not all that bad the way Joe is not all that bad. However, it just doesn't have the firepower to go against the big guns in the Oscar race. Remember the wild surprises and rich characters of the long-form Sopranos?

Maybe that's why the film gangster genre feels troubled here: The arch enemy, TV!

Gangster movies have been a major component to American cinema for quite some time. With established films like The Godfather series, Scarface, among other films, sometimes it can be hard to produce a quality modern day crime film. But Ben Affleck has made an attempt this weekend with the movie Live by Night. Can Affleck's recent resurgence revitalize the gang movie, or does his operation go belly up before it gets started? Robbie K here with another review and as always appreciate the read.

LIKES: • Solid acting • Incredible Setting and Costumes • Very Detailed Description of a mob rising

Summary: Affleck's stoic, monotone, performances continue to find footholds in a variety of parts, and his portrayal of a gangster with a conscience is spot on. Although not the most emotionally dynamic character, Affleck's tactics work in portraying a man struggling with the trials at hand. Chris Messina as his sidekick has more of an edge that helps offset the monotone delivery of the lead role. Other actors do their job of crafting the seedy mob family, being cunning, ruthless, or strong to accomplish their goals. If the acting doesn't sell the gangster setting than the costumes and scenery will do the trick. Live by Night uses the big budget of the film industry to recreate the roaring 20s, complete with old fashioned zoot suits, classic car models, and the nostalgic traditional models of high-end restaurants. I felt I had traveled back in time in this flick, with only the high definition cameras and a recognition of modern day fabric to shatter the illusion. Finally, the other component that sells the crime theme is the attention to detail of starting a crime syndicate. Most other crime movies often have our character in an established family, but Live By Night twists this concept and casts Affleck into raising a satellite family in Florida. Much of the film is focuses on how he establishes business contracts, allies, love, occasionally throwing in some conflict resolution that brings a little excitement to the film.

DISLIKES: • Slow pace • Awkward Summaries • Boring At times • Rushed over ending

Summary: Although some of my favorite mafia movies don't have action, they at least have an engaging plot that is suspenseful. Not the case for this movie. Live by Night is slow, often paying a little too much attention to monotonous details for building the empire. The film tried to build the suspense with their overdone explanations that promised some heart crushing moments... only to wrap things up with a monologue from Affleck describing what happened. These mundane, overlapping comments did little for me other than decrease the run time of the movie and I was disappointed at the lack of effort for drama. The result for me was a very boring film not only in terms of action, but in emotional suspense as well. If you look at the classics, the storytellers built up tension that climaxed at those gut-wrenching moments as a character was killed. However in this film, they seldom came close to matching that suspense, the only exception being two moments near the end of the film. And speaking of the ending… it felt out of place for me. Live By nights "exciting" climax has a heated battle that fits well into the theme of the movie, but finally relieves the boring moments. Had they ended with the monologue after that it would have been perfect. Yet, the movie didn't stop and added an extra twenty minutes that summed things up, but in a manner that to me was very simplistic, rushed, and lackluster.

The VERDICT:

Live by Night is a gangster movie that felt more like a video guide to starting a bootlegging operation. It certainly has the look and feel of a gangster movie, complete with family drama, but it lacks that edge the mobster classics had. Outside of a few moments, this movie was a little toned down for my tastes, and I didn't like the monologue summaries as they robbed us of some exciting conclusions. Therefore, this reviewer can't recommend this movie for the theater outside of the look of the movie.

My scores are:

Crime Drama: 6.5 Movie Overall: 5.0

Ben Affleck returns to Dennis Lehane's work with this adaptation of Live By Night, the second novel in a trilogy (starting with The Given Day and finishing with World Gone By). Live By Night is a gangster epic which follows the rise to power of Joe Coughlin, a young Boston criminal who ends up running an empire in Florida for the Italian mob. As with The Town and Argo, Affleck casts himself in the leading role and is joined by an impressive supporting cast including Sienna Miller, Zoe Saldana, Elle Fanning, Robert Glenister, Chris Cooper and Brendan Gleeson.

The film begins with Coughlin, as the narrator, introducing himself as a veteran who has returned disillusioned from WW1 to the extent that he refuses to follow rules or take orders from anybody. As such, he now considers himself an outlaw. We see him and his crew embark on daring robberies, including a poker game ran by one of Boston's major gangsters, Albert White (played with menacing vigour by Glenister) whose moll is having an affair with Coughlin. As repercussions ensue, Coughlin reluctantly takes on a job for White's mob rivals who send him to Ybor City, Florida, in order to take over their rum import enterprise during the prohibition era. Despite initial protestations that he is not a gangster, does not want to be wedded to the mob or have to take orders from anyone, he eventually concedes to his circumstances and his need for revenge against White, and so quickly sets about establishing his presence, authority and power across Southern Florida. In doing so, he finds love, friendship and enemies as he encounters the wrath of various strands of the Florida populous, ranging from the devoutly religious to the KKK, who take umbrage with his diverse business and personal relations. Naturally, events head toward a bloody and violent showdown.

As an addition to the gangster genre, Live By Night certainly has a uniqueness to it. Thanks to the Florida setting, there is a notable feel and style to the film. Whereas the typical gangster movie might be set in dark and claustrophobic city locations such as Chicago, New York, Detroit or Boston, the story here is told against sun-soaked, colourful and expansive scenery which provides a sense of heat so stifling that it can almost be felt coming through the screen. The film also boasts some sumptuous scenery, particularly of the Florida glades, whilst the early 20th Century town-life of Ybor City really comes to life thanks to excellent design, costumes and vibrant music. It was interesting, too, to see a gangster film based during the prohibition era which told its story from the perspective of the suppliers of the alcohol, rather than the city-based recipients. Additionally, the ethnic diversity of the characters form a foundation for the depiction of the racism that was so prevalent in the southern United States during this period, and this gives Live By Night a distinctiveness within the genre.

Unfortunately, whilst Affleck has proved himself to be a superb director, this is by far his weakest effort. Hastily cut and edited, the first act in particular chops and changes scenes with such frenetic pace and frequency one could be forgiven for feeling queasy with motion sickness. This may very well be a conscious decision by Affleck, as Coughlin's voice-over thankfully helps provide some degree of constructive narrative, but as a result any provision of context, plot or character development feels completely overlooked; an issue that lingers throughout the film. Too much feels glossed over and rushed, with relationships suddenly formed and underdeveloped, whilst character motivations and intentions are under-explored and largely ignored.

Lehane's novel does not suffer from the same issues and therefore the source material cannot be blamed here. Indeed, we are introduced to Coughlin in the first novel, The Given Day, and his character, relationships, background, grievances and drive are detailed thoroughly. With Affleck's film, he introduces us to Coughlin midway through the character's reality and doesn't bother to lay a foundation for him. As a result, Coughlin's relationship with his high-ranking police officer father is barely covered, whereas Lehane uses this as one of the core influences behind his intention to live a life of crime. In the film, Coughlin says how he mourns for a lost love, but this is not something we actually get to see. Again, Lehane uses this as a key impetus for his character. Affleck's Coughlin, a petty criminal, insists on not becoming a gangster, yet hits the ground running the second he arrives in Florida setting up the empire. There are various other examples which all highlight how the events within Affleck's film are mostly conceived out of pure convenience.

Compounding this sense of underdevelopment and hastiness is an infuriating lack of any indication of how much time is passing throughout the story. At one point towards the end of the film, Coughlin refers to a girl who died in 1927, and this just highlighted the fact that, aside from references to US Presidents and the end of prohibition, there is nothing to suggest when these events are taking place or indeed how long they are taking.

It's frustratingly poor storytelling, especially when considering the strength and quality of the source material. Combined with Affleck being so prominent in his leading role, his decision as the director to use so many facial close-ups and lingering shots of Coughlin means that Live By Night essentially feels like a self indulgence piece. Ironically, his brother Casey would arguably have made a better Coughlin and perhaps Affleck would benefit from staying behind the camera next time.

Ultimately, Live By Night is a missed opportunity. It looks fantastic, and there are some excellent action sequences including car chases and shoot-outs, but as a drama it is severely lacking in impact and finesse.

After reading two pages of reviews I can only come to the conclusion that a lot of people are just bitter humans that can not enjoy a movie without having the need to think they would do it all better if it was up to them. Because seriously if you are going to rate this movie with one star then there must be something wrong with you and I really wonder what kind of movie you would rate as perfect. I won't say it's the best gangster movie ever but it is certainly not the worst either. It could have used a bit of more action but that's just a futility. If you like a bit of drama combined with a not bad gangster story then you should enjoy Live By Night. Ben Affleck might not be the best actor ever but he did a good job directing and playing in this movie. So for all the reviewers that rate this movie below three stars I would suggest you stop watching movies and go play some ping pong or something else instead.

I went to the theater to watch a Gangster/Mafia movie, and I got one. Mafia movies are by far my favorite type of movie. Live by Night delivered that 1920's gangster look. Ben Affleck does an amazing Irish Mafia member persona. The story was very moving and the characters were likable. There was just enough action in the movie. The tommy gun fight scenes felt like a real 1920's gang shoot out. Live by Night shows a true gangster movie look. Most Mafia movies rely on the story to make their movie good. Live by Night uses action and an amazing story. I had a little trouble with keeping up with the names of the characters but later on I started memorizing their names. Defiantly go see this movie if your a gangster/mafia movie fan. Live by Night will not disappoint you.

A movie based on a novel by Dennis "Mystic River, Shutter Island, Gone Baby Gone" Lehane, dealing with a revenge-seeking gangster, living in an uncomfortable nexus between Boston prohibition era gang wars, southern Floridian racial politics and revival tent religiousness. How, oh how did they screw this one up? How could they have taken a story so immediately appealing and thick with tried-and-true genre conventions exploring worthwhile themes, and turned it into a disjointed Frankenstein's monster? I'm not so much asking because I'm angry, I'm asking because I'm genuinely impressed.

Live by Night centers on the complicated machinations of Boston hoodlum Joe Coughlin (Affleck) whose small time banditry captures the attention of rival mob bosses. While Joe is Irish (and the son of a police constable), his sympathies lie more or less with Italian mob boss Maso Pescatore (Girone). He further endears himself to Pescatore after Irish mob boss Albert White (Glenister) kills Coughlin's lover (Miller) and nearly kills him if not for the interference of Boston's finest. After a stint in jail, Joe vows revenge by administrating Pescatore's interests in Tampa while choking White and his crew out of the rum trade. While doing so, Joe falls in love with a local crime bosses sister (Saldana), truces with Tampa's Police Chief (Cooper) and receives the ire of the local KKK.

Live by Night, for all its good intentions, has all the focus of a barrel of buckshot. It sprays its themes in every which way desperately hoping the audience will connect the dots with extended periods of voice over narration. When we're not forced to listen to Affleck's gravelly voiced monologues, we get to experience the actor himself, who uneasily takes the limelight by wearing his wardrobe with the color symbolism of a mood ring.

The tragedy is as a proved actor and director, Affleck should have been able to take this kind of material and make it shine like a fifty cent piece. But due to maybe the vastness of the material (or maybe Warner Bros. penchant for meddling), Affleck just seems unsure of himself both in front and behind the camera. Each scene is caked with exciting period detail yet there's no pulse, no bustle, not vibrancy to everything that's put on the screen. There are a lot of good moments in the film (many provided by Matthew Maher's deep fried racist nincompoop), but because there's such a lack of focus or tension, each moment happens in a vacuum and slowly suffocates in the void.

Live by Night feels like three great seasons of a decent cable show that's been chopped up and awkwardly smooshed together to make a highlights reel. Just like the skeleton of the casino that's being built in this film, everywhere you look there are hints of grandeur. Unfortunately that grandeur never comes and all you're left with is a great looking structure that's quickly sinking in a swamp of molasses.

"Live By Night" sees star Ben Affleck back in the director's chair for the 4th time, his previous directorial offerings being "Gone Baby Gone", "The Town", and best picture winner "Argo", and sadly, it's easily his worst. "Live By Night" boasts a wonderful cast, stunning cinematography, and enthralling action set pieces but lacks any emotional weight or an interesting story, it's your usual by the numbers gangster flick about tough guys in over-sized suits blasting each other with Tommy guns and stabbing each other in the back. "Live By Night" is not a bad film by any means but is a forgettable entry in the gangster film genre and a disappointing directorial effort from Ben Affleck.

I've been a fan of Ben Affleck's directional efforts ever since I saw Gone Baby Gone way back in 2007 in theaters. I also loved The Town and think its his best film to date. Live by Night sort of came out of nowhere but I'm always down for Prohibition era crime films. The film seemed to get lukewarm reviews but there was no way I wasn't going to see this for myself. Overall, I'd say I enjoyed it and its better than what other critics are saying.

The film is set in Boston (and then Tampa) and is the story of the son of a police captain, who becomes a bootlegger and gangster. Be forewarned that there isn't much that separates this from gangster films we've seen before, however Affleck knows what he's doing and I think he does it well. The thing that pops out to me is the dialogue. Its quite clever and witty. There's funny moments and the film isn't always super serious, which is refreshing. Not everything in the script has to be explained as the viewers are expected to follow the message. The suits, cars, glamour, of the 20s and 30s is captured quite well (not that I lived in that era to really know if it was accurate). Some of the dialogue was hard to hear in theaters (the accents probably contributed to this). I think this film will one day warrant a second view anyways.

While I really enjoyed the film, it isn't without faults. It really depends on whether you can forgive the film for that or really see it as a detriment. Some of the characters felt loose and suddenly disappear. This includes Siena Miller, Elle Fanning and Brendan Gleeson. Fates of characters are explained and such but they feel unfulfilled. I thought Fanning's character was just becoming great, but as I said unfulfilled. Miller's character arc was just so odd as well (maybe rushed to fit the story). Well, at least my boy Miguel was in this. The film seems to want to tackle a few foes/events in different parts of the film and doesn't always do it seamlessly, which makes the film seem unfocused. The events of the third act felt rushed together just to come to a resolution. Without going into spoiling there's a head scratching moment near the end that seemed out of left field. I didn't have too many problems with all this and maybe its because I'm partial to Affleck and gangster films.

I enjoyed the car chase and gun battles. I think the comic element of the film kind of swept into the action scenes which made it enjoyable. I liked that the film takes place in Tampa and mixes with the Black and Cuban community as well. Its nice to see a sort of different locality in a gangster film. I'm sure there's much more I want to ramble about but nothings coming to me. Overall, this probably won't be something that'll be a the top of year end lists but its thoroughly enjoyable even through its flaws. Its not Affleck's best but I applaud him for directing and writing films in a time where he's busy being in blockbusters.

8/10

Joe Coughlin (Ben Affleck) returns from the Great War and leads a robbery crew in Boston. His girlfriend Emma Gould is the inside man who is also the mistress to Irish gangster Albert White. A gang war between White and Italian mob boss Maso Pescatore blows up. He gets set up by White, beaten, and imprisoned. After his release, Pescatore recruits him to chase after White who has escaped to set up an operation in Tampa, Florida. With his best friend Dion Bartolo by his side, he builds a rum operation in Tampa. He befriends Sheriff Irving Figgis (Chris Cooper) and his daughter Loretta (Elle Fanning) who is heading to Hollywood. He marries local Graciela Corrales (Zoe Saldana). He battles the KKK and then tries to build a casino.

This story seems to be too big for Affleck's writing skills. He's proved his directing skills but this is a long meandering criminal life. He's trying to make Godfather but he doesn't have the vision. It also doesn't help that he plays Joe in a cold and distant manner. He is so cold that none of his relationships are appealing. I don't care about Emma and only slightly more about Graciela. The saving grace is that he doesn't get romantic with Loretta as I feared. That may be why her character is more compelling than almost everybody else. This movie pushes Affleck to his limits and he shows his limitations.

Actor/writer/director Ben Affleck tries his hand at a period piece in this ambitious crime saga beginning in the 1920s Prohibition era. Joe Coughlin--the son of a renowned Boston police officer--is a small-time crook looking to make a name for himself in the ruthless underworld of organized crime. After some tragic circumstances, he relocates to the South to become the frontman/muscle for an Italian mafia bootlegging operation, but quickly gets plunged into the seedy, seductive world of money, power, greed, and corruption. Intriguing at first, with tense action scenes and character interactions, but follows too many unrelated story threads, has ineffective casting in key roles, too many familiar elements, and concludes in pat, sanctimonious fashion. Despite flavorful ingredients, Affleck's attempt to create a potent, moralizing amalgam of The Town and The Godfather doesn't quite succeed. **½

Love Ben Affleck as a movie director. From the moment the Warner Bros. Logo came up I knew I was in for a treat. Ben takes us back to 1927 the same way he took us back to 1972 in Argo( Which he starred and directed). Around the time of the end of prohibition. He plays an Irish Boston bank robber like he did in the Town (which he also directed himself in) who ends up heading the Tampa Bay Florida division of an Italian mafia.

Couldn't help but to laugh seeing all the white on white crime in the film. Over a hundred years ago the Italians were no better than the Cubans who occupied Tampa Bay and it was strange seeing that culture in the film.

The action was great. The movie has a few awesome car chases using 1920s cars and it looked amazing. Plus the big shoot out would make Scarface bashful of the violence. I'm so impressed.

The music in was great and lended perfectly to the dramatic scenes

And I love how sarcastic the film is. Pokes a little fun at itself and the stereotypes of being a gangster film.

Fantastic Job, Ben!

http://cinemagardens.com

I'm a long-time Affleck fan, & I like it when I can review his movies favorably (as I did with "The Accountant").

Unfortunately, that is not the case this time. It's not that the movie is bad--it isn't--it just isn't that good either. It's a period piece, taking place in the 1920s & 1930s when rival mobs fought over the illegal booze trade among other illicit activities. It takes place in Boston & Florida, but mostly in Florida.

The acting was good (Chris Cooper was especially good), and the period costumes & sets were amazing, but the movie's plot was thin. And of course, considering the theme of the movie, there's lots of violence & blood.

The movie is an adaptation (the screenplay was written by Affleck) of a Dennis Lehane novel. (Lehane & Affleck are long-time collaborators, with the two of them collaborating on at least three projects that I know of, and I'm beginning to wonder if Affleck bought the rights to all Lehane's novels, including future books.)

Because I am such a big Affleck fan, I try to see all of his movies on the opening weekend, hoping to contribute to his movies winning the opening weekend box office, which is so important in the entertainment business. As much as I would like to see this movie win the opening weekend's box office because it is an Affleck movie, I'm afraid I'd recommend that you save your money & do a Red Box rental or wait for it to be offered on Netflix or Amazon Prime.

Prohibition era Boston. Small-time Irish crook Ben Affleck doesn't want to get caught up in the territorial war between Irish gangster Robert Glenister and Italian gangster Remo Girone. But when he falls for Sienna Miller, an inside woman for one of his jobs, it's too late as she's also Glenister's mistress. When a robbery goes wrong and some cops end up dead, and Glenister gets the word about Miller and Affleck, it's only because of Affleck's dad, a police captain who knows everything about everyone in Boston, that Affleck ends up doing some hard time in prison rather than go to the chair or get killed by Glenister. But Miller's dead and when Affleck gets out again, he wants revenge and turns to Girone. Girone sets Affleck up in Florida where Glenister's been moving in on his liquor business. Affleck does well there and manages to take over most of Glenister's business. But Florida isn't just run by gangsters, it's also run by the KKK...

Bloody awesome! If you enjoy the 30s and 40s gangster movies starring James Cagney and Lawrence Tierney (Affleck looks so much like him at times, I am convinced he based his physical demeanor in this movie on him), this movie will bring a smile to your face. While Affleck's character is never quite as ruthless or cold as Cagney's and Tierney's trademark roles, he definitely embodies that same kinda spirit. The movie also touches upon the more political/racial/religious aspects of the era, such as where police captain Chris Cooper tells Affleck he will turn a blind eye as long as he keeps his business to the bad (read: non-white) part of town (and of course there's the KKK as already mentioned above).

While Affleck is far from the greatest actor ever, he seems very aware of his limitations and makes them work to his advantage here. It also helps that he's supported by an excellent cast. And the movie looks absolutely stunning with some great sets and set pieces, and tons of beautiful 20s/30s cars (including a great car chase in and around Boston). Affleck, who also directed this movie, and DoP Richard Richardson, as well as the set & art directors, give this movie a great and authentic look, which by itself is worth the price of admission.

If there's a negative to this movie, it's that Affleck (also the screenplay writer!) wants to bring too much of Dennis Lehane's source novel to the table. Because of the sheer amount of plot lines some get a bit lost in the shuffle and not given too much attention (I also left out some rather important ones in this review, hah). I assume that similar to his 2010 movie 'The Town' his original cut is way longer than the current 2h9m runtime tho, so hopefully at some point a 'director's cut' of 'Live By Night' sees the light of day. For me however, the 2 hours flew by, and I was on the edge of my seat from the first second to the last. I can't recommend this movie enough, and I am even considering seeing it again in the cinema. Let me say it again: Blood awesome!

My thought process going into this was: "It's got mixed reviews, but at least it will have cool cars and clothes and plenty of action, so how bad can it be?"

I ended up walking out 45 minutes before the end, not because it was bad, but because I just did not care what happened next. The film is empty; utterly soulless. It's like watching over somebody's shoulder while they play a computer game (especially in the CGI-heavy car- chase scene, but in the CGI-heavy rest of the film too.)

The acting is terrible. The main character has one single facial expression, and that's it. The dialogue is awful. The only good lines in the movie are lifted from "Miller's Crossing" and the only actor who seems to have any emotions at all is Messina.

Scene follows scene, but there's no reason to care. Things happen, but completely at random, as though the screenwriter is playing a dadaist game with cut-up Boardwalk Empire scripts. Characters are introduced, and then blown off the screen a couple of scenes later, never to be seen again.

Historical accuracy does not seem to be a priority, but the filmmakers don't seem to be going for all-out historical inaccuracy (in the style of Baz Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby) either; they just seem to be incompetent. Salsa dancing in the 1920s? Really? 1970s pantsuits? I suppose I can't blame them for not caring.

I don't care either. I don't care if you see this film or not. I just wanted to warn you how utterly meaningless it is. To paraphrase Dr. Narcisse (a memorable gangster character with cool dialogue played by a great actor): Go and see it. Or don't. Your choice.

I thought it was really a great film, a little slow but doesn't drag. I loved the stance on racism and the take on the churches mob mentality, it's main theme to me was whatever you do will always come back to you.

This movie was produced, written, played and directed by the same man, an actor who believes he should become a genius of cinema if he wants to respect himself. It is a bundle of stereotypes, anachronisms, bad acting and excess of dialogue and "ideas". I wanted to walk out one hour into the film, but I was with someone. If the above said were not enough, the crap lasts 130 minutes of unbearable boredom. By the way, I loved the Cuban music played in that Florida party; the movie makers imply this is about 1930 but the orchestra sounds like Gloria Stefan's songs, those guys were 70 years ahead of their time! *Wonderful*! And this gross inaccuracy is a strong characteristic of the film, as every possible approach to all possible events of the late twenties/early thirties (they only forgot to cleverly link the plot to Lindbergh's kidnapping) is seen through the lens of the nice opinions of today. This is therefore probably the fakest thirties you can see on a screen. I also want to underline the utterly stupid and worthless "morals" of the story, as it is plain from start that the badass played by Affleck is not better than the guys he fights & kills, and some of his actions are particularly disgusting and vicious. You want a proof? There's no way you can feel you care a speck of dust about any character in the film, save for maybe some of the victims of the tough guy. A recital of viciousness which tries to lecture us on morals. Unpalatable. I agree with almost all user reviews between 4 and 1. What you read in those reviews is the best that can be said about this film.