Boston, 1926. The '20s are roaring. Liquor is flowing, bullets are flying, and one man sets out to make his mark on the world. Prohibition has given rise to an endless network of underground distilleries, speakeasies, gangsters, and corrupt cops. Joe Coughlin, the youngest son of a prominent Boston police captain, has long since turned his back on his strict and proper upbringing. Now having graduated from a childhood of petty theft to a career in the pay of the city's most fearsome mobsters, Joe enjoys the spoils, thrills, and notoriety of being an outlaw. But life on the dark side carries a heavy price. In a time when ruthless men of ambition, armed with cash, illegal booze, and guns, battle for control, no one-neither family nor friend, enemy nor lover-can be trusted. Beyond money and power, even the threat of prison, one fate seems most likely for men like Joe: an early death. But until that day, he and his friends are determined to live life to the hilt. Joe embarks on a dizzying... Written by
This movie was produced, written, played and directed by the same man, an actor who believes he should become a genius of cinema if he wants to respect himself. It is a bundle of stereotypes, anachronisms, bad acting and excess of dialogue and "ideas". I wanted to walk out one hour into the film, but I was with someone. If the above said were not enough, the crap lasts 130 minutes of unbearable boredom. By the way, I loved the Cuban music played in that Florida party; the movie makers imply this is about 1930 but the orchestra sounds like Gloria Stefan's songs, those guys were 70 years ahead of their time! *Wonderful*! And this gross inaccuracy is a strong characteristic of the film, as every possible approach to all possible events of the late twenties/early thirties (they only forgot to cleverly link the plot to Lindbergh's kidnapping) is seen through the lens of the nice opinions of today. This is therefore probably the fakest thirties you can see on a screen. I also want to underline the utterly stupid and worthless "morals" of the story, as it is plain from start that the badass played by Affleck is not better than the guys he fights & kills, and some of his actions are particularly disgusting and vicious. You want a proof? There's no way you can feel you care a speck of dust about any character in the film, save for maybe some of the victims of the tough guy. A recital of viciousness which tries to lecture us on morals. Unpalatable. I agree with almost all user reviews between 4 and 1. What you read in those reviews is the best that can be said about this film.
37 of 68 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this