maksimstoyanov
So I was watching the movie and saw a lot of little inconsistencies that would've made Hank turn in his grave. The first inconstancy was the actor himself. He reminded me almost nothing of Charles. He's too young, too tall, too confident with his appearance -- always groomed and resembled no stress or anything that would indicate he's Charles. Hell, if you didn't tell me this movie was based on Factotum, I would've believed it was some sort of Actor going through a rough patch. The people at the race track cheered for Hank and his friend, the "old man" at the race track who took their seats died. I can go on all day. It's kind of sad that they went ahead and threw their stupid spins on it. If you're gonna do it, do it right. Don't FKING add your stupid BS Hollywood spins onto it and think it's Good.
PWNYCNY
Matt Dillon is a great actor and he proves it in this movie. He plays an alcoholic writer who refuses to give up his dream, showing a strength of character and an iron-will that belies his drinking and marginal existence. His performance carries the movie and keep sit interesting. Mr. Dillon makes the character, and through the character the story, interesting. He is traveling through life, not asking for much, except to be able to write, which is a lonely existence. Nobody understands him; the women in his life, including his mother, most of all. No one perceives his brilliance and it's driving him to drink, and occasionally to act out. He crashes, he boozes, he mopes, but he writes. He takes only the most marginal, menial jobs, because he has a higher calling, which nobody knows about except him, and if he told anybody else, they wouldn't understand anyway.
revotstover
doesn't mean this movie is good. i was really frustrated by it on many levels. it's kind of the tip of the hat to bukowski. hey, i've read that guy in college--let's see what matt dillon does with him. and i like matt dillon. i thought he came close to looking a little like hank, but mostly just the ruddy cheeks. i have to care about a character, though, and there just wasn't much here to care about. i think time might be cruel to bukowski, and that bothers me a lot, because the writing was solid in a sort of post counter culture time. hard to sit through, scenes that went nowhere, and a soundtrack that made me want to vomit. i ask for very little, got less.
Maddkat
It's possible that people who enjoyed this movie, did so because they had previous knowledge of the writer this movie is loosely based upon, Charles Bukowski. I have never heard of this author going into the movie, and I'm not sure it would have mattered that this fictional story is based upon what life as Charles Bukowski is romanticized to be. The fact that I like Matt Dillon in most of his films, didn't make me like his character Henry any better.Parts of the film include voice over of Henry speaking. In most films they use this as a narration tool to let us know things the movie otherwise can't reveal in the scenes. In "Factotum" I am afraid the dialogue was the text in the written submissions Henry was making to a publisher. I hope I am wrong. It was mind-numbing drivel, like a diary of how one behaves like a loser, but with no skills in telling it even in an entertaining fashion. Henry's voice is just a simple narrator to his mundane life of getting fired and getting drunk, it suggests nothing poetic or redeeming at all.I'm not opposed to enjoying movies which show the alcoholic spiraling out of control, even if it has a totally unsatisfying ending. I really enjoyed "Leaving Las Vegas" with Nicolas Cage and Elisabeth Shue as Ben and Sera. Here a guy commits suicide by drinking himself to death, but he convinces you to like him in spite of his terrible character flaws and bad behavior. "Factotum" just can not accomplish this for me.
AD
