Some Thoughts On Today’s Really Bad Oscar News

Posted on August 8, 2018 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Today, we learned some news about the future of the Academy Awards and it was pretty much all bad.

First off, here’s the message that was issued earlier today:

Dear Member,

Last night, the Board of Governors met to elect new board officers, and discuss and approve significant changes to the Oscars telecast.

The Board of Governors, staff, Academy members, and various working groups spent the last several months discussing improvements to the show.

Tonight, the Board approved three key changes:

1. A three-hour Oscars telecast

We are committed to producing an entertaining show in three hours, delivering a more accessible Oscars for our viewers worldwide.

To honor all 24 award categories, we will present select categories live, in the Dolby Theatre, during commercial breaks (categories to be determined). The winning moments will then be edited and aired later in the broadcast.

2. New award category

We will create a new category for outstanding achievement in popular film. Eligibility requirements and other key details will be forthcoming.

3. Earlier airdate for 92nd Oscars

The date of the 92nd Oscars telecast will move to Sunday, February 9, 2020, from the previously announced February 23. The date change will not affect awards eligibility dates or the voting process.

The 91st Oscars telecast remains as announced on Sunday, February 24, 2019.

We have heard from many of you about improvements needed to keep the Oscars and our Academy relevant in a changing world. The Board of Governors took this charge seriously.

We are excited about these steps, and look forward to sharing more details with you.

John Bailey and Dawn Hudson

Let’s take this point-by-point.

Number one: the three-hour telecast.

Who cares? I mean, yes, the Oscars always run long. But really, that’s part of the charm of the whole ceremony. It never runs as smoothly as it’s supposed to and it’s a reminder that, as smug as Hollywood can be, they have as difficult a time meeting deadlines as the rest of us.

But, even if you do think that the length of the ceremony is really a big issue, is the solution really to punish the winners? For me, one of the good things about the Oscar ceremony is that it acknowledges what is too often forgotten. Film is a collaborative medium. People like Roger Deakins, Colleen Atwood, Joi McMillon, and Carter Burwell are just as important to the overall quality of a film as Ryan Gosling or Jennifer Lawrence. Giving them their awards during a commercial break is not only insulting on a personal level but it also goes against everything that the Oscars should stand for.

Plus, I happen to love it when a previously unknown filmmaker wins the Oscar for Best Live Action Short Film and then totally geeks out about it on the stage. I mean, that’s the magic of the movies right there. At that moment, you’re sharing the best moment of this person’s life. If I have to choose between listening to Chris Overton and Rachel Shelton talk about winning the Oscar for their short film, The Silent Child, or listening to Meryl Streep insist that she’s actually just a working mom from New Jersey, I’m going with Overton and Shelton every time.

If you want to cut down on the length of the ceremony, how about not opening with the host giving a 10-minute monologue? How about not wasting time with those always cringe-worthy segments where stars visit the theater next door or the host insists that everyone buy his daughter’s girl scout cookies?

(I know that everyone loved the Oscar selfie but seriously, every ceremony now feels the need to try to top it and it’s just annoying.)

How about not even having a host? Or at the very least, how about a host who will just introduce the presenters without bring their own time-consuming schtick to the stage? I mean, Jimmy Kimmel has a show of his own to have celebrities read mean tweets on. There’s no need to bring the Oscar ceremony to a halt for it.

Number Two: Best Achievement In Popular Film

Eh. You might as well just call this the Christopher Nolan Trophy or maybe the MCU Award. Though the details aren’t clear yet, it basically sounds like a participation trophy.

Basically, this award says, “We’re not willing to seriously consider a film like Black Panther for any of the major awards but we’re freaking out about the ratings so here’s an honorable mention.” It’s kinda like in high school, when someone would really debase themselves to get the popular kids to come to their party and you ended up losing respect for them regardless of whether the party was good or not.

We all know that the Academy needs to open its mind and, at the very least, give some consideration to films like Wonder Woman, The Dark Knight, Skyfall, and Black Panther. But this isn’t the way to do it. If anything, this award just gives the Academy even more of a excuse to ignore those “popular” films when it comes time to select the nominees for Best Picture.

Add to that, what does popular mean anyway? Why not just give a trophy to the producer of the film that made the most money at the box office?

Number Three: The new dates

To be honest, this upset me more than anything. This doesn’t take effect until 2020 but, if the ceremony is moving to February 9th, then when are the nominations going to be announced? Considering that most Oscar contenders get a limited release before going wide in January, this is going to create a situation where people like me, who don’t live in Los Angeles and New York and who don’t want to move, aren’t going to be able to see the majority of the nominees before the nominations are announced. It’s interesting that, in their attempt to appeal to a wider audience, the Academy is basically embracing elitism like never before.

Here’s the thing: the Oscars are never going to be cool. They’re just not. Nobody — not even the biggest Oscar fanatics — believe that the Oscars ever truly honors the best films of the year. The Oscars have been around forever and they’re always going to be viewed as being a bit stodgy. If giving best picture to Moonlight couldn’t change that perception, nothing ever will. The more the Oscars try to change, the more they’re like Steve Buscemi carrying a skateboard and saying, “Greetings, fellow kids.”

There may be a solution to the Academy’s woes but this isn’t it.

Oscar, in happier times

Guilty Pleasure No. 37: Death Wish (dir by Eli Roth)

Posted on August 7, 2018 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Is it finally safe to honestly review Death Wish?

You may remember that this film, a remake of the 70s vigilante classic, came out last March and critics literally went insane attacking it. That it got negative reviews wasn’t necessarily a shock because the movie was directed by Eli Roth and he’s never been a favorite of mainstream critics. Still, it was hard not to be taken aback but just how enraged the majority of the critics appeared to be. Seriously, from the reviews, you would have thought that Death Wish was not just a bad movie but a crime against nature.

Of course, a lot of that was due to the timing of the film’s release. The film was released less than a month after the shootings at Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida. At the time the film first came out, the country was in the midst of a daily diet of anti-second amendment rallies and David Hogg. Many critics accused Death Wish of being a commercial for the NRA. Others branded the film as being right-wing propaganda. In fact, the criticism was so harsh that it was hard not to feel that the critics were essentially taking Death Wish far more seriously than it took itself.

If anything, Death Wish is a big, glossy, and rather silly movie. Bruce Willis stars as Dr. Paul Kersey. Paul is a peace-loving man. We know this because he refuses to get into a fight with a belligerent parent at a soccer game. He’s also an emergency room doctor, the type who pronounces a policeman dead and then rushes off to try to save the life of whoever shot him. No one in the movie suspects that Paul would ever become a vigilante but we know that there’s no way he can’t eventually end up walking the streets with a loaded gun because he’s played by Bruce Willis. When Paul backs down from the fight at the soccer game, Willis delivers his dialogue with so much self-loathing that we just know that, once Paul gets back home, he’s going to lock himself in the basement and start yelling at the walls, Stepfather-style.

Eventually, criminals break into Paul’s house and shoot both his wife (Elisabeth Shue) and his daughter (Camila Morrone). His wife dies. His daughter ends up in a coma. Paul spends a day or two in shock and then he promptly gets a gun and starts shooting criminals. Eventually, this brings him into conflict with the same criminals who attacked his family! Meanwhile, two detectives (Dean Norris and Kimberly Elise) look at all the dead bodies piling up around them and just shrug it off. At one crime scene, Norris is happy to grab a slice of pizza.

And really, that’s it. It sounds simple because it is simple. There is absolutely no narrative complexity to be found in Death Wish, which is why, in its own cheerfully crude way, the film totally works. In real life, of course, vigilante justice is not the solution and the death penalty is often unfairly applied but, from the moment the opening titles splash across the screen, Death Wish makes clear that it has no interest in real-life and, throughout its brisk running time, it literally seems to be ridiculing anyone in the audience who might be worried about the moral ramifications of a citizen gunning down a drug dealer.

Death Wish is a big extravagant comic book. It takes Paul one scene to go from being a meek doctor to being an expert marksman and, when Paul dispatches one criminal by dropping a car on him, Roth lays on the gore so thick that he almost seems to be daring us to take his film seriously. By that same token, Paul kills a lot of people but at least they’re all really, really bad. In fact, the criminals are so evil that you can’t help but suspect that Roth is poking a little bit of fun at the conventions of the vigilante genre. Even the fact that Willis wanders through the entire film with the same grim expression on his face feels like an inside joke between the director and his audience.

The critics were right when they called Death Wish a fantasy but they were wrong to frame that as somehow being a flaw. It’s a cartoonishly violent and deeply silly film and yet, at the same time it’s impossible not to cheer a little when Paul reveals that he’s been hiding a machine gun under his coffee table. It’s an effective film. Eli Roth delivers exactly what you would expect from a film about Bruce Willis killing criminals in Chicago. It may not be a great film but it works.

Previous Guilty Pleasures

What Lisa Watched Last Night #188: Killer Twin (dir by David Langlois)

Posted on August 5, 2018 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Last night, I watched the latest Lifetime original film, Killer Twin!

Why Was I Watching It?

Well, it was on Lifetime, of course.

Plus, I love movies about evil twins!

What Was It About?

As babies, twin sisters Amber and Kendra were both abandoned at the same orphanage. The head of the orphanage, Eunice (Bronwen Smith), took an instant dislike to Amber but always liked Kendra. When it looked like the sisters had a chance to be adopted, Eunice arranged for Kendra to go off with new parents while Amber remained at the orphanage.

30 years later and Kendra doesn’t even remember that she had a sister. However, Amber remembers. Kendra has a great life, with a good job and a nice husband (Jason Cermak) and a big house. Amber has … well, Amber has a lot of bitterness. When Amber manages to track down Kendra, she sets out to make her sister’s life a living Hell. That means breaking into her house, ruining her credit, lusting after her husband, and … even murder!

(They couldn’t call it Killer Twin if one of the twins wasn’t a killer!)

What Worked?

Occasionally, a supporting character will pop up in one of these movies and, despite having limited screen time, they’ll become something of a cause célèbre for those of us watching. In Killer Twin, that character was Marvin (Nelson Wong). Marvin was a totally nice, friendly, and professional guy who worked at a bank. When he suspected that Amber might be imitating her sister, Amber reacted by hitting him in the head with a safe deposit box and then running out of the bank.

Now, here’s the thing. Amber hit Marvin pretty hard. A lot of us were convinced that Marvin was dead. BUT NO! Marvin not only lived but he went back to his desk and called the police! YAY MARVIN! After that happened, I think we all definitely wanted Justice for Marvin.

As for the rest of this film, it was a good and entertaining Lifetime movie. It was totally over-the-top, melodramatic, and fun. Lindsay Hartley was obviously having a ball getting to play two totally opposite characters and director David Langlois and cinematography Jan Klompje brought some visual flair to the story. There was one shot in particular, in which Amber seemed to literally emerge from the Seattle fog, that was especially impressive. Visually, Lifetime films have come a long way.

What Didn’t Work?

It all worked! If you can’t enjoy a good killer twin movie, I worry about you.

“Oh my God! Just like me!” Moments

You know, at the start of the movie, I was pretty much Team Amber. I mean, I went through a whole period of time when I only wore black and I refused to smile and I’m actually kind of amazed that people put up with me while all that was going on. I knew that Amber was serious about her scheme when she removed her nose ring because seriously, nose rings are almost as painful to take out as they are to put in! I speak from personal experience.

But then, of course, Amber hit Marvin and I lost sympathy for her. Leave Marvin alone!

Lessons Learned

Marvin is indestructible and evil twin movies are always fun!

Cleaning Out The DVR: Cheerleader Nightmare (dir by Danny J. Boyle)

Posted on August 4, 2018 by Lisa Marie Bowman

I recorded Cheerleader Nightmare off of Lifetime on July 29th, 2018.

According to the imdb, Cheerleader Nightmare was originally titled Teen Drone Stalker. Lifetime often changes the title of the movies that it acquires so I guess it’s not a shock that Teen Drone Stalker became Cheerleader Nightmare. And I guess I can understand the reasoning behind the title change. Teen Drone Stalker is a bit of an unwieldy title while Cheerleader Nightmare rolls right off the tongue. Add to that, as a title, Cheerleader Nightmare promises both cheerleaders and nightmares, which has been a successful Lifetime formula in the past.

That said, Teen Drone Stalker is actually a far more accurate title. Don’t get me wrong. There are cheerleaders in this film and one of them does get murdered. So, it’s not as if the new title is deceptive or anything. But, in the end, it’s the teen drone stalkers who are far more important to the story than the dead cheerleaders.

(Add to that, Teen Drone Stalker is a great name for a band. I’d probably call them TDS for short, however.)

Anyway, the story centers around Sophie (Taylor Murphy), who is her high school’s official photographer. She and her friend Mickey (Johnny Vistocky) use a drone to capture exciting action shots of the school’s football team and the cheerleaders. Sophia has a complicated history with cheerleading. On the one hand, her mother (Melissa Ponzio) is the cheerleading coach and never makes a secret of the fact that she wishes Sophie was on the team. On the other hand, Sophie wants to find her own identity and maintain her independence. Meanwhile, Sophie’s former best friend, Leah (Mia Stallard) is the head cheerleader and Sophie’s boyfriend, Tyler (Jeremy Shada), is on the football team. You would think that Sophie’s mother would be happy that Sophie’s dating a football player but, instead, she’s concerned because Tyler used to be a juvenile delinquent.

Got all that?

Good, because things are about to get complicated.

While using Mickey’s drone to spy on a party being given at the football coach’s house, Sophie catches Tyler making out with Leah! Then, someone murders Leah! Was it Tyler? Was it one of the other cheerleaders? Was it Mickey, who seems to have issues with popular students? Or …. could it have been Sophie!? Seriously, Sophie seems to have a lot of unresolved issues towards cheerleaders.

I’ll be honest. I spent the first 45 minutes or so convinced that Sophie would be revealed to be the murderer. I had it all worked out in my mind. I was convinced that Sophie suffered from blackouts, during which time she became a murderous named Sofia. Was I right? Was I wrong? I guess you’ll have to watch the film to find out.

That said, I did relate to the character of Sophie. When I was in high school, I was frequently told that I should I be a cheerleader but I never tried out because my sister was a cheerleader and I was all like, “I have to have my own identity!” Looking back, it seems like kind of a silly thing to worry about but, at the time, it was like my declaration of principles. Needless to say, I made my sister watch Cheerleader Nightmare with me so that I could get her opinion. Erin says that it was an okay movie but she also pointed out that, if the cheerleaders had done a better job, everyone would have been too full of school spirit to commit any murders. I have to agree with her on that.

Cheerleader Nightmare got off to a good start but it lost its way about halfway through. I did enjoy counting up all of the red herrings that the film introduced before revealing the identity of the killer but there’s only so much you can really do with a red herring. In the end, the identity of the murderer was not a big shock and it was hard not to feel that the murder would have been solved a lot earlier if Sophie and her mom had just stayed out of everyone’s way. Unfortunately, Cheerleader Nightmare was no The Cheerleader Murders.

Film Review: Invasion U.S.A. (dir by Alfred Green)

Posted on August 3, 2018 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Here’s how Invasion, U.S.A. opens:

A bunch of strangers sit in a bar. On the television, a blandly handsome anchorman delivers the news. He talks about foreign wars. He talks about domestic conflicts. One of the bar patrons asks the bartender to turn off the news. Who cares about all of that stuff? All he wants to do is have a nice drink before heading home to his cattle ranch. Can’t he just do that in peace? The bartender agrees and turns off the news…

That’s a scene that gets played out a lot nowadays. No one wants to watch the news. Certainly not me. I guess we all know that we should because it’s important to know what’s going on in the world and blah blah blah. But seriously, people who spend all of their time watching the news inevitably seem to end up going insane and ruining twitter. I’ve got no interest in doing that.

Here’s the thing, though. Invasion U.S.A. may open with a contemporary scene but it’s hardly a contemporary movie. Instead, it was made in 1952 and it serves as proof that we’re not the first Americans to get sick of watching the news and that our current crop of politically minded filmmakers are not the first to try to change our mind with heavy-handed propaganda.

Everyone at the bar has a complaint. The Arizona rancher resents having to pay high taxes just to support the defense department. The Chicago industrialist is upset that the government wants to use his factories to build weapons. Congressman Haroway (Wade Crosby) is a drunk. Socialite Carla Sanford (Peggie Castle) worked in a factory during World War II but she no longer follows the news. Newscaster Vince Potter (Gerald Mohr) is a cynic. Tim the Bartender (Tom Kennedy) is too busy selling cocktails to worry about the communists.

Only the mysterious Mr. Ohman (Dan O’Herlihy, who would later play Conal Cochran in Halloween III) seems to care. While holding a conspicuously oversized brandy glass, Mr. Ohman explains that he’s a forecaster. What’s a forecaster? A forecaster is … oh wait! There’s no time to explain it because the communists have invaded!

Everyone sits in the bar and watches as the news reports on the invasion of the U.S.A. (Everyone except for Mr. Ohman, who has mysteriously vanished.) In the tradition of all low-budget B-movies, the invasion is represented through stock footage. Lots and lots of stock footage. Planes drop bombs. Soldiers run out of a barracks. Cities burn.

When everyone leaves the bar, they discover that America has been crippled by people like them, people who never thought it would happen. Some of our bar patrons die heroically. (Not Tim the Bartender, though. He’s still making dumb jokes and cleaning beer mugs when the bomb drops.) Some of our patrons regret that they didn’t care enough when it would have actually made a difference. The industrialist discovers that, because he wouldn’t let the government take over his factory, he now has to take orders from sniveling little Marxist. The rancher discovers that taxis get really crowded when everyone’s fleeing the Russians. And others discover that better dead than red isn’t just a catch phrase. It’s a way of life.

Of course, there’s a twist ending. You’ll guess it as soon as you see Mr. Ohman with that brandy glass…

Invasion U.S.A. is often cited as one of the worst films ever made but I have to admit that I absolutely love it. I have a soft spot for heavy-handed, over the top propaganda films and they don’t get more heavy-handed than Invasion, U.S.A. There’s not a subtle moment to be found in the entire film. You have to love any film that features character authoritatively declaring that something will never happen mere moments before it happens. Best of all, you’ve got Dan O’Herlihy, playing Mr. Ohman with just a hint of a knowing smile, as if he’s as amused as we are.

Politically, this film is a mixed bag for me. The film argues that you should trust the government and basically, shut up and follow orders. I’m a libertarian so, as you can imagine, that’s not really my thing. At the same time, the villains were all communists and most of the communists that I’ve met in my life have been pretty obnoxious so I enjoyed the part of the film that advocated blowing them up. The only thing this film hates more than communists is indifference.

In the end, Invasion U.S.A. is a real time capsule of a film, one that shows how different things were in the past while also reminding us that times haven’t changed that much. Though the film’s politics may be pure 1952, its paranoia and its condemnation of apathy feels very contemporary.

(For the record, apathy is underrated.)

Seen today, what makes Invasion U.S.A. memorable is its mix of sincerity, paranoia, and Dan O’Herlihy. Unless the communists at YouTube take down the video, you can watch it below!

Trailer: If Beale Street Could Talk

Posted on August 3, 2018 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Yesterday was James Baldwin’s birthday so it was also the perfect day to release the trailer for Barry Jenkins’s upcoming film, If Beale Street Could Talk. If Beale Street Could Talk is based on a 1974 novel by Baldwin.

Jenkins, of course, previously directed Moonlight, which won the Oscar for best picture. Interestingly enough, Moonlight defeated Damien Chazelle’s La La Land for the prize. This year, not only is Jenkins back but so is Chazelle with First Man.

So, could we be looking at another Jenkins vs Chazelle Oscar race? Maybe. Who knows, to be honest? That is what a lot of people are hoping for, of course. Jenkins vs. Chazelle: The Rematch!

Check out the trailer and try to guess what will happen for yourself!

4 Shots From 4 Mario Bava Films: Black Sunday, Kill Baby Kill, Lisa and the Devil, Shock

Posted on July 31, 2018 by Lisa Marie Bowman

4 Shots From 4 Films is just what it says it is, 4 shots from 4 of our favorite films. As opposed to the reviews and recaps that we usually post, 4 Shots From 4 Films lets the visuals do the talking.

104 years ago today, the most important Italian filmmaker of all time was born. Today is Mario Bava’s birthday! And, as we often do here at the Shattered Lens, it’s time to celebrate with…

4 Shots From 4 Films

Black Sunday (1960, dir by Mario Bava)

Kill, Baby, Kill (1966, dir by Mario Bava)

Lisa and the Devil (1972, dir by Mario Bava)

Shock (1977, dir by Mario Bava)

What Lisa Watched Last Night #187: The Wrong Cruise (dir by David DeCoteau)

Posted on July 29, 2018 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Last night, I watched the latest Lifetime premiere, The Wrong Cruise!

Why Was I Watching It?

Well, the obvious answer is that it was on Lifetime and I always watch Lifetime original films. I’m running a little bit behind in reviewing all of them and, for that, I apologize. Hopefully, I’ll be able to get caught up next week!

The other reason that I was watching The Wrong Cruise was because it was a “wrong” movie. As any regular Lifetime watcher knows, there are several different genres of Lifetime movies, each with their own quirks and rules. There’s the “Killer” movies, which usually feature Barbie Castro. There’s the “at 17” movies. There’s the “Deadly” movies. And then there’s the “Wrong” movies. Several of these films — including The Wrong Cruise — were directed by David DeCoteau and usually featured Vivica A. Fox and William McNamara in memorable supporting roles. The “Wrong” movies are always a lot of fun.

What Was It About?

Ever since her father died, teenager Sky Tanner (Sidney Nicole Rogers) has been acting out. After throwing a punch at track meet, Sky finds herself on the verge of being expelled from school! Uh-oh!

Fortunately, for Sky, it looks like she’s about to get a break from the stress of dealing with high school. Her mother, Claire (Vivica A. Fox), is booked on a cruise to Mexico and there’s no way that Claire’s going to leave Sky home alone.

At first, it seems like the perfect vacation! Claire meets a man named Dante (Andres Londono). Sky meets a teenage boy named Rico (Adrian Quinta). Love is in the air! Dante is charming and quite insistent that Claire go sailing with him. As for Rico, he’s willing to buy drinks for the underage Sky and he’s more than happy to show Sky around Mexico.

If, at this point, you’re saying, “I don’t trust either of them!,” you’re not alone. After you’ve seen enough Lifetime films, you know better than to trust any charming stranger. Add to that, while Sky is drinking with Rico and Claire is flirting with Dante, there’s a creepy ship’s mate (played by William McNamara) who seems to be determined to keep an eye on both of them. What’s up with that?

What Worked?

This one was a lot of fun, largely because Vivica A. Fox and Sidney Nicole Rogers were totally and completely believable as mother and daughter. Every time that Claire said something overprotective and Sky reacted by sighing and rolling her eyes, the more you found herself believing in their characters. When they inevitably ended up getting into trouble, the stakes felt real because the mother/daughter relationship felt real.

Londono and Quinta both did work as Dante and Rico but the film was ultimately stolen by William McNamara. For such a handsome actor, he’s really good at playing creepy Lifetime movie villains.

What Did Not Work?

I would have liked to have spent a little more time on the cruise ship. For a film called The Wrong Cruise, it seemed like the boat was a little underused. Then again, maybe I just want to go on a cruise…

“Oh my God! Just like me!” Moments

I didn’t run track in high school but, if I had, I would hope that I would have had just as combative an attitude towards my competitors as Sky had towards her’s.

Also, like Sky, I spent a lot of my teenage years rolling my eyes at overprotective parental figures.

Lessons Learned

Never get out of the boat.

4 Shots From 4 Clara Bow Films: It, Wings, Dangerous Curves, Call Her Savage

Posted on July 29, 2018 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Happy birthday to my pre-code role model, the amazing Clara Bow!

4 Shots From 4 Clara Bow Films

It (1927, dir by Clarence G. Badger)

Wings (1928, dir by William Wellman)

Dangerous Curves (1929, dir by Lothar Mendes)

Call Her Savage (1932, dir by John Francis Dillon)

Film Review: Live By Night (dir by Ben Affleck)

Posted on July 28, 2018 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Remember Live By Night?

Released in December of 2016, Live By Night was one of those highly anticipated films that ended up bombing at the box office and leaving critics cold. The anticipation was due to the fact that Live By Night was the first film that Ben Affleck had directed since Argo won best picture. It was seen as Affleck’s next prestige picture, the one that would remind everyone that he was more than just the latest actor to be cast as Batman. Live By Night was expected to be a huge Oscar contender. As for why it bombed at the box office, that may have had something to do with the fact that Live By Night is not a very good film.

It’s a gangster film, one that takes place during prohibition. Joe Coughlin (Ben Affleck) is the most boring gangster in Boston. Or, at least, he is until he falls for the wrong woman and he ends up having to flee down to Tampa. Once down there, Joe sets himself up as the most boring gangster in Florida. There’s all sorts of themes running through Live By Night — racial themes, economic themes, even some heavy-handed religious themes — but ultimately, the main impression that one gets from the film’s story is that Joe Coughlin was a very boring gangster.

Anyway, Joe gets involved in all sorts of corruption and violence. He brings down his friend, Dion (Chris Messina), to help him out. Whereas Joe is rational and dull, Dion is violent and dull. You spend the entire movie waiting for the moment when Dion will turn on Joe but it never happens. I guess that’s a good thing since Joe and Dion are busy battling the Klan. Joe may be a 1920s gangster but he’s got the political and cultural outlook of a 21st century movie star.

Joe knows that prohibition is going to end someday, so he hopes to make money through opening up a casino. Standing in the way of the casino is a prostitute-turned-evangelist named Loretta (Elle Fanning). Loretta is the daughter of the local police chief (Chris Cooper), with whom Joe has an uneasy friendship. You keep expecting this plot to go somewhere but it really doesn’t. Loretta’s just kinda there. That said, we do get a hilarious shot of a tearful Chris Cooper repeating the word repent over and over again so there is that.

Zoe Saldana is also just kind of there, playing Joe’s Cuban wife. Again, you expect a lot to happen with Saldana’s character but, for the most part, she’s mostly just a plot device who exists solely so that Joe can have some sort of motivation beyond simply wanting to get rich.

It’s a big, sprawling film that never quite feels like an epic. A huge part of the problem is that Ben Affleck the director is let down by Ben Affleck the actor. Regardless of what’s happening in the scene, Affleck always has the same grim look on his face. At times, it seems as if he’s literally been chiseled out of a marble and you find yourself wondering if he’s actually capable of any facial expression beyond glum annoyance. A gangster film like this need a bigger-than-life protagonist but, as played by Affleck, Joe always seems to be in danger of vanishing into the scenery.

I think part of the problem is that Affleck’s previous films all dealt with places and subjects that Affleck felt comfortable with, perhaps because he could relate their stories to his own personal experiences. Gone, Baby, Gone and The Town both took place exclusively in Boston. Argo dealt with the film industry. Live By Night is a period piece set in the South and Affleck is obviously lost from the minute Joe arrives in Florida.

Live By Night, I think, could have been a good movie if it had been directed by someone like Paul Thomas Anderson and maybe if an actor like Colin Farrell played the role of Joe. But, as it is, it’s just a rather stolid and uninspiring gangster film.