लाइव बाई नाइट

"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!

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.

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.

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.