Ben Affleck is the best making movies from others times, the setup is wonderful. Great movie.

Save your 2 hours. Watch something that is actually good

Long film, but appreciated the amount of thought Ben Affleck put in making this story. I do not find the film to be boring, but there were elements in the story that could have been presented with more detail. For example, Emma Gould played by Sienna Miller was not a character that shined. There were elements of gangster material, but the taste was bland, despite a little bit of action. I was puzzled by Zoe Saldana's role because I did not believe that her role brought enough of Ben Affleck's character. The cast usage was good, but there doesn't seem to have enough centers of attention for each character. While this movie is not bad to watch for first time, it might be the only time I will watch it.

Ben Affleck rebuilt his reputation mostly on the strength of his skills as an able and savvy director, having directed the successful and justifiably praised films "Gone Baby Gone", "The Town" and ‘Argo", for which he won the Oscar for Best Director. Affleck is a marginally good actor, good when the scripts and casting are on the money — think of how wonderful John Wayne was in " Red River" and how awful he was as Genghis Khan in "The Conqueror" — and his evolution , during his time off camera, into learning the craft of film direction (and the obligations of being a producer) seems to have given a sharp and canny sense of what kind of material he can be credible in as an actor and director. He's been doing good work in films he hasn't directed but starred in, such as "Gone Girl", "The Accountant" and "Batman v Superman"; he has gotten praise from critic and fan both for his sharpened sense of the camera lens. As with Wayne and fellow actor-director Clint Eastwood, Affleck has learned to do fine work within his limited range as an actor. But the 4th time is the charm, the warning, seen in his new period crime drama "Live by Night",where we come across him as a petty criminal in 30s era Boston, finding himself caught between a war between the Irish and the Italian gangs that are vying for domination. Long story brutally abbreviated, our hero finds himself working for the Italians as he heads up their Miami rum running operation. What unfolds after that is a string of gangster movie cliches and hackneyed melodramatic plot turns that cannot fool you into thinking that what's happening between the characters on screen — whether the premise is love, lust, betrayal, revenge or philosophical convictions that become endlessly compromised by real life complications — is anything more than mere mechanics. The story is a machine running on the fuel of over familiar parts. The script, based on a novel by the estimable Dennis Lehanne, is credited to Affleck alone , and this where the blame for the film's listless wade through lifeless plot turns must fall; he displays a tin ear for fresh dialogue and is unable, in this effort, to create anticipation, a sense that a viewer does not how any of this will end. That I was able , many times, what was going to happen ten later in the picture based on the heavy-handed foreshadowing of both image and chatter doesn't make me smart, only that "Live by Night" has the predictability of a sub-standard television cop-drama.(It may mean, also, that I spend too much time watching movie.)There are several plotlines that attempt to create an eventual ironic consequence that would cast the respectable coat of Tragedy around this production, but such elements and effects work only if the writing hand is subtle and nearly invisible in the laying out of the story elements that will eventually turned one's assumptions about what's happening on their head, elements that are seen, noted, and then nearly forgotten about until they emerge again and consequently change the tone and meaning of the story, unexpectedly but credibly. What the movie lacks in cogent transformation it makes up in plot demarcations being hit squarely (and without grace). Affleck's writing and direction hasn't the patience nor grace to make this work. Glaring as well is Affleck's casting in the lead role. Affleck is too tall, too squared jawed, too muscular; he looks uncomfortable in the suits he's put himself; worse, often times he appears about to burst out of them, Hulk style.And again, about Affleck's acting limits come into play, which is to say that his facial expressions are not subtle nor do they lure you in to read the lines of his face or the shine or lack thereof in the eyes; Affleck seems to have fixed expressions for happy, sad, angry, raging, laughing, crying, mostly robotic and seeming unmotivated by the tragedies, murders and raging extremes happening around him. Much as I've defended Affleck in the past as an actor, this time he seems aware of only where he he is in relation to the camera. It's worth noting that the praise for writing on Affleck's other efforts as director — "Gone Baby Gone", The Town" and "Argo" — were for efforts where there were collaborators in the scripting, in the persons of Chris Terrio, Aaron Stockard and Peter Craig. The implication seems clear, that what the author scribes provided were a sensibilities that could carve Affleck's contributions to the respective project's line and and theme into something sharper, less obvious. The dispiriting stream of over used tropes in ‘Live by Night" is such that it blunts the efforts a fine cast , Zoe Saldana and Chris Cooper in particular. This is cool professionalism from actors trying to eke out small moments of good craft from a script that gives them no love.

First off, those accents! Ben Affleck is in full blown low, whispery and (I assume) Italian/Irish gangster accent mode here, among numerous others. It felt a bit over the top. However, I liked the period setting, the old building frontages and so on. The special effects (explosions etc.) are alright - its certainly watchable if you can get past the cheesy accents(!) but there are definitely some cliches present (I wasn't keen on the female characters). Still, its not un-entertaining regardless. This film is alright - not one I'd recommend you go out of your way i.e. pay much to see but its an ok watch, not a complete failure but its not especially great either. There are some good bits of dialogue and it paints the scene of criminality in America at the time of the prohibition era relatively well, so it could be worse. Its certainly true that there's more dialogue driven scenes than fast paced action scenes - whether that would bother you depends on your own taste in films I suppose. I suppose I'm sort of sitting on the fence - I dont think it deserves the really low ratings some people give it but I wouldn't give it a very high rating either, somewhere in the middle (Make of that what you will). I don't like to feel totally put off watching a film that initially appeals to me, due to negative reviews - I bought it after seeing it on sale for £1 and it appealed to me - I wasnt familiar with it so I bought it and I certainly wouldn't say it wasn't worth that low price. I certainly thought it was interesting to see it in terms of it being directed by Ben Affleck as well, although I wouldn't say this is his best directorial effort, its ok. I wouldn't write him off as a director entirely, even though this isn't as good as it perhaps good have been - its a decent attempt at a good film but it is slightly lacking, although it does have a nice sense of atmosphere.

I found the book a masterpiece, and I generally also like the movies Affleck directs. This however, was a big waste. Most of the changes he made to the novel resulted in a considerably worse end result. They rushed through some scenes that were, in the book, amazing. And it resulted in a very rushed and ingenuine feeling throughout the movie. The conversations in the movie seemed very forced and acting was subpar considering the cast generally acts incredibly well. A real waste and a shame, this movie

A good, original gangster movie -- This is not your typical gangster movie, which is usually set in New York or Chicago. This one starts in Boston then moves to Tampa, Florida. After being left for dead by his old gang boss in Boston, Joe Coughlin (Ben Affleck) heads for Tampa bent on revenge but ends up building an empire. Set in the 1920s South, it has its dose of Southern bigotry (anti-Catholicism as well as racism), Christian fundamentalism, and even some fights with the KKK. The acting and the movie set are great.

Ben Affleck's fourth directorial project under full craftsmanship command faltered in rehashing the crime genre unceremoniously and inadvertently squandered such terrific cast except for his intellectual charismatic performative delivery that stands out pretty much with the aforementioned rest. (B-)

Great portrait of the underworld in the thirties

Well crafted with some compelling action scenes, this by-the-numbers gangster flick lacks everything that would raise it above the mundane. A weak screenplay bogged down by Affleck's wooden performance that can't be saved by the shining Saldana or the brilliant Chris Cooper - it's a channel flipper even on a rainy Saturday.

was at starbuck's in South Park, CO. and ran into Mr. Mackey, guidance counselor at South Park Elementary. he's also a movie lover, so we chatted about this flick. we both liked it, but he did say, and i quote: "white people are bad, um, except for atheists or gangsters, m'kay."

Very good movie, so much to it. I thoroughly enjoyed it. - a female minority

Live by Night is a prohibition era action/suspense crime drama highlighted by many true to life Tampa/Ybor elements. Although the names/characters and actual events were ficticious, there were a lot of parallels with Tampa and Ybor's history. The bootlegging tunnels, the mafia & the KKK's presence, the racially and culturally mixed prohibition era Ybor City... all were very real elements of Tampa's history. Even some of the buildings are eerily similar to actual Ybor City landmarks. So, in terms of historical reliability, it gets pretty high marks. And the story... it was good. It wasn't as good as Road to Perdition. But it was pretty good. There were lots of twists and turns, although many were predictable. So, if you're looking for a dramatic masterpiece, this is not it. But if you are looking for a decent prohibition era gangster movie in a unique setting with some carefully placed historical cues, Live by Night is a solid choice.

A work of art. Gorgeous photography. An intimate story about family, the father-son legacy and how our choices can change our lives.

From the beginning I couldn't get into the plot. If this guy was so idealistic why was he a criminal?

It's not bad per se, but it definitely isn't braking any new ground in the gangster/crime genre.

It's a good movie. I was impressed by it. It was a little predictable though.

While initial expectations may not be met it is in itself a very sound and elaborate movie. It shows the portrait of a Man that includes decisions, mistakes and spans a very long lifetime without trying to be a saga. The Mafia aspects seem odd at first, but they are more authentic as in many other movies - after all Mafia in the 30ies is family business and prohibition.

In the first two acts, this screenplay is more fun than than the tone the score and editing are trying to push: Gangster Tampa, paunchy henchman Chris Messina, the mob defeats the KKK, Ben Affleck makes a speech about uniting the proletariat, there are some dolphins, etc. But the movie can only work against itself for so long before catastrophic failure. The last 10 minutes contain as many fake endings at the Lord of the Rings and they get progressively worse. Two stars because the non-Affleck actors tried their best, but they really didn't know what movie they're in.

This is the movie that made me stop checking this site for opinions. Ironic I know, but this is one of the best movies I've ever seen and it's rated under 40%. All the way outta here