I wasn't expecting this to get great reviews, but wow I was not expecting them to be this poor either.
shareBatman v Superman effect. The good will towards underdog Affleck is gone after Argo. Reviews may be skewed with hyperbole.
share33% right now. The curious thing is that the score isn't half bad - 6,1 average. Which means most critics have mixed feelings about the movie, but not necessarily hate it.
"Live By Night feels rushed - missing all the slow burn drama that Affleck showed he was so good at in his prior three films."
That was one of my biggest fears for the movie. Seriously, I like Affleck as a director, but someone needs to show him how to do quiet moments. He never lingers on a moment, hardly lets the audience breathe. His movies could have so much more gravitas if he would only add a few minutes of silence and reflexion.
What the hell are you talking about? The quote you're using says the opposite of what you mean.
The Town, Gone Baby Gone, Argo, they all had quieter moments, did you forget about Doug hanging out with Claire? Or Doug in his apartment, alone, working out, then going to that meeting with other people talking about their lives.
Gone Baby Gone gets very quiet at times, Argo has quieter character moments. Seems to me you don't remember any of it, you make it sound like his movies are non stop action, they're not.
About Live By Night, the average rating is indeed completely at odds with the RT score, which shows again how flawed the system is, maybe Metacritic is more accurate indeed. About the rushed parts, I will say it: there is without a doubt a longer, slower cut of this somewhere.
The film was supposed to come out in October 2017, then they're test screening it in April and all of a sudden, the film is coming out in January. Did WB push the film too early because they wanted to give it a nice awards friendly release date?
It seems obvious from the comments that Ben cut the movie way down, I would have expected a running time closer to 2h30, 2h40, which is what I seem to remember reading at some point, maybe Ben was a bit rushed. Considering how strong his first three films are, I can only think of that, but hey, maybe the film is great, and they're not connecting with it, happens.
All these moments you mentioned may not be action scenes, but they aren't quiet. 95% of the time people are talking or there is a score playing in the background. These movies rarely linger on a shot for more than a few seconds, or let characters just be.
I'm not saying his movies should be 50% people staring at each other in silence, but truly quiet moments, no music, no dialogue, can have a great effect on drama, adding weight to a movie, letting the audience reflect on what the character is thinking and feeling, what they would do in their position, etc.
Now, Town doesn't bother me that much on that regard, but Gone Baby Gone is so rushed it feels like a trailer. Maybe that has partly to do with the fact I read the book just before watching the movie, so of course it would've felt rushed, but still, many slow-burning moments from the novel were chopped down to the point of having just a fraction of their original impact. I wasn't bothered with the cut material, and adaption-wise the movie is very solid. But there's barely any time to build atmosphere and let the emotions sink in.
Lol, so your definition of a quiet moment in a film has to be without score?
It's total BS by the way about rarely lingering on a shot. And there are those moments you speak of.
Didn't read Gone Baby Gone, so just going by the film (that Lehane praised by the way), it doesn't feel rushed at all.
Seriously, rewatch all his movies.
[deleted]
Yes, there is probably a much bigger version of this movie somewhere -- script was at some point 165 pages long, if I remember correctly, and I wouldn't be surprised if they ended up cutting close to an hour of footage.
That's a real shame. I'd much rather see a complete 3h movie on theathers than a chopped up 2h version that has half the impact, and then wait for the extended edition to come out. Extended editions shouldn't be the definitive version, just something extra for those who really liked the movie.
[deleted]
Scripts should be as long as they have to.
share[deleted]
Not that long ago Avatar did almost 3 billion dollars -- and that movie was 2h:40 minutes. And before that, Return of the King was 3h21 minutes and Titanic was 194 minutes. If the movie is appealing enough, audiences are willing to sit for 3h+ movies. And really, how many people bingewatch series and go through a season in a day or two?
share[deleted]
Having read the book, I'm not surprised by these reviews. Affleck was too old for the role, and I don't know how he managed to fit this adaptation into 128 minutes.
shareThe funny thing is that Dennis Lehane thought the same thing, that he was too old, but he test screened for him and Lehane gave him his blessing. Ben is not playing him at 19 though, he said he changed his age for obvious reasons, it seems there's a bit of CG de-aging going on for the earlier parts too.
shareInteresting. I did not know that. Still, the little glimpses of his performance I've seen felt off, which I'm hoping won't be the case in the full context of the film.
shareHonestly the first red flag for me was the running time. Just over 2 hours. I thought to myself, boy there's a lot of material to cover in a short period of time.
Irving Figgis/Loretta, KKK, Albert White, Maso Pescatore, Emma Gould, Graciela, Thomas Coughlin.. there's just too much.
This film project meant so much to me because it's my favorite novel of all time. I'm sad by these reviews, but I think I'll probably still enjoy to see this material on the big screen, because it's such a wonderful book.
If this was a 10 episode mini-series, it'd be the talk of the season. Funny how that works. This film will get knocked for a lack of character development, but Lehane wrote such beautiful characters, and if given a 10 episode TV run instead of a 2 hour film, it would shine beautifully. Oh well.
I'm still going to see it ASAP.
And pray to God there's a director cut released with the Blu-Ray that's closer to 2:40 instead of the theatrical time of 2:08
[deleted]
A tv mini series would be way too much. It's a long book, but not that long, and the narrative feels very cinematic. The Given Day seems to me much more fit as a mini series.
I believe Live By Night could cover all the plot beats and deliver satisfatory character development in about 2h 40m. Make it 3h if you also want to include stuff like Danny visiting Joe in prison.
I've also read the source novel. This adaptation is missing much of the meat of the source novel (glossing over some major plot points) but it's well above average as far as big blockbusters go.
shareWell here's to hoping I enjoy it more than Batman versus Superman.
Whatever you are, be a good one.
Only 27 % Rotten Tomatoes?But Elle Fanning is in Live by Night.Are the critics blind?
shareIt's not the first time Ben Affleck was in a rotten movie.
Whatever you are, be a good one.
But Elle Fanning is amazing.Live by night is a masterpiece
shareLOL! Yikes. The reviews are truly terrible.
shareYou all act as if all the reviews have been counted, they haven't. Unless this film is only going to be seen by 15 critics. The better reviews may still not have come out. Also why do people act like this movie failing means Afflecks now a bad director? His still great and if anything the critics are saying this movie is beautifully crafted on the direction side of things.
I just tend the bar.
ROTTEN TOMATOES....IS GETTING ROTTEN....THESE DAYS.
SORT OF LIKE WHEN MY LOCAL CRITIC HATES SOMETHING I WILL LOVE IT...
Very disappointing. Not sure whether I will end up seeing it in theaters. I still might consider giving it a chance.
share15 reviews, 5 of which are positive, many more still coming in and you're ready to give up on it? At this point the movie could still achieve 60% on Rotten Tomatoes.
I just tend the bar.
There's no way it will get to 60%. It has remained stead on late twenties, early thirties, and at best it may get to 40%. The score dropped from 6 to 5,3, too. Not a good sign.
I'm still gonna check it out, because I love the novel so much and I think I'll still be able to enjoy some of the movie. But these reviews aren't the least bit reassurring. Pity, really.
Once you have more than 10 reviews, it's pretty rare for the movie to move more than 10% in one direction or another.
share