Live By Night | Christmas Day limited release, wide release on 01/13/17 | Ben Affleck/Warner Bros. New trailer on page 8

[filmlover]

Man, the end of the year has produced so many critical duds from talented people. Collateral Beauty, Passengers, Assassin's Creed, now this. Just goes to show you can't win them all.

[TimmyRiggins]

1 hour ago, JennaJ said:

 

So you're saying he's a great actor who can't emote because of his face? 

 

What I said is he's a solid actor, but he doesn't have a face that is as expressive as Casey for example or other actors. Ultimately, it makes me smile when someone says "oh he's wooden", or the same thing about another actor, that's one of the reasons why some actors have more range than others. Does that make more sense?

 

About Batman, it will not be his downfall, he's been very careful about the project, notice how he repeatedly said "first let's get the script right before we make a movie", he knows he can't make a mediocre Batman film, and he's making sure he has something that works over meeting a release date or whatever. Seriously, if LBN getting mixed reviews starts a moronic backlash movement on his skills as a director, it'll be pathetic

[bapi]

4 minutes ago, TimmyRiggins said:

 

What I said is he's a solid actor, but he doesn't have a face that is as expressive as Casey for example or other actors. Ultimately, it makes me smile when someone says "oh he's wooden", or the same thing about another actor, that's one of the reasons why some actors have more range than others. Does that make more sense?

 

About Batman, it will not be his downfall, he's been very careful about the project, notice how he repeatedly said "first let's get the script right before we make a movie", he knows he can't make a mediocre Batman film, and he's making sure he has something that works over meeting a release date or whatever. Seriously, if LBN getting mixed reviews starts a moronic backlash movement on his skills as a director, it'll be pathetic

But then he also confirmed spring start date so it means pretty much nothing. WB have this date and that's it.

[TimmyRiggins]

That was before he confirmed they would start shooting during the spring. I'm sure WB would have wanted it ready to go sooner than that, he's been the one taking his time. 

 

 

[bapi]

8 minutes ago, TimmyRiggins said:

That was before he confirmed they would start shooting during the spring. I'm sure WB would have wanted it ready to go sooner than that, he's been the one taking his time. 

 

 

Well, Manganiello and Irons confirmed spring weeks ago.

[Cochofles]

1 hour ago, Napoleon said:

Jesse was a perfect Lex Luthor, read the comics. I saw Guardians of the Galaxy yesterday and was laughing so hard at Lee Pace and Karen Gillan hamming it up yet nobody talks about it. 

 

For people to talk about a character, they have to remember it.

Nebula and Ronan, just like every MCU villain not played by Tom whatshisface, are afterthoughts in those films...too forgettable to even get a massive dose of trashtalk.

[Goffe]

Frankly, this looked like a bore since day 1. I was never was huge on Affleck as a director (or actor for that matter). Can't remember a thing about Argo or The Town. Haven't seen Gone Baby Gone, though.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Goffe

[Goffe]

as I was writing my post, my man Ehrlich weighed in his thoughts on this

 

Edited December 21, 2016 by Goffe

[CoolioD1]

i did say previously that affleck gets less and less interesting as a filmmaker with each new movie. and you know the batman picture is likely to continue that trend.

[redfirebird2008]

1 hour ago, TimmyRiggins said:

 

Seriously, if LBN getting mixed reviews starts a moronic backlash movement on his skills as a director, it'll be pathetic

 

It's bound to happen. Just the way the world is.

[The Futurist]

Morale of the story : 

 

Ben, don't do funny drawings movies.

 

 

[SpiderByte]

1 hour ago, Cochofles said:

 

For people to talk about a character, they have to remember it.

Nebula and Ronan, just like every MCU villain not played by Tom whatshisface, are afterthoughts in those films...too forgettable to even get a massive dose of trashtalk.

 

A change from DC's strategy where the heroes AND the villains are boring and forgettable!

[Chewy]

You knew something was up when it took them so long to announce the limited run

[franfar]

5 hours ago, CoolioD1 said:

reminds me of Paul Thomas Anderson talking about casting boogie nights. these actors need to know their age range.

 

 

Just imagine Warren Beatty, age 60, in the final scene 

[franfar]

What was the last gangster movie to do well? American Gangster, perhaps

Edited December 21, 2016 by fracfar

[franfar]

1 hour ago, CoolioD1 said:

i did say previously that affleck gets less and less interesting as a filmmaker with each new movie. and you know the batman picture is likely to continue that trend.

Maybe WB could meddle in it to make it interesting

[redfirebird2008]

9 minutes ago, fracfar said:

What was the last gangster movie to do well? American Gangster, perhaps

 

That was 2007. Public Enemies in 2009?

 

EDIT: Black Mass did pretty well in 2015. $53m budget and $100m box office.

Edited December 21, 2016 by redfirebird2008

[franfar]

6 minutes ago, redfirebird2008 said:

 

That was 2007. Public Enemies in 2009?

 

EDIT: Black Mass did pretty well in 2015. $53m budget and $100m box office.

Public Enemies... Black Mass didn't get 2x it's budget, but it was close. PE barely got over the threshold as well

[TalismanRing]

1 hour ago, redfirebird2008 said:

 

It's bound to happen. Just the way the world is.

 

 

I think it was Variety that opined that Affleck the director failed Affleck the actor by not pushing him enough in this.   Others say he was just miscast.  I don't think it's a coincidence that his best performance by far was given under the very exacting 100+ take Fincher.

 

Here, he's also without a co-writer on a screenplay for the first time - of an at times unwieldy novel - which seems to have resulted in an even more unwieldy script.  It sounds like he might have bitten off more than he could chew.

[redfirebird2008]

3 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

 

I think it was Variety that opined that Affleck the director failed Affleck the actor by not pushing him enough in this.   Others say he was just miscast.  I don't think it's a coincidence that his best performance by far was given under the very exacting 100+ take Fincher.

 

Here, he's also without a co-writer on a screenplay for the first time - of an at times unwieldy novel - which seems to have resulted in an even more unwieldy script.  It sounds like he might have bitten off more than he could chew.

 

Good point on Fincher. Definitely enjoyed Affleck's performance in Gone Girl.

 

I think casting himself as a 19 year old in this new movie is a really weird decision. Wonder how much of it is Ben's ego and how much of it is WB liking the fact they don't have to pay two A-List people (separate director and actor). This movie turning out to be a bust could be a good thing in the long run though. One step back and maybe learn from it to make better decisions in the future.