Steineded How sad is this?

Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Freeman This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Ortiz Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

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.

brucetwo This is not the Bukowski novel of the same title. Some of the incidents are from that book, others are from Buk's other stories. But much of the point of Bukowski's writing seems to have been missed. None of his intelligence, skepticism, humor and the grim determination to survive and "get through" life. This film's Chinaski just seems to be only a guy who likes to drink and get into fights (which is part of Bukowski's writing, but only the most superficial). Kind of reminds me of the "dumbed down" Clint Eastwood movie "Every Which Way But Loose" where he is driving around in a truck with a monkey or orangutan or something. Interesting that some of the scenes from another Bukowski-inspired film--"Barfly"--is also in this movie. This film seems to have been made after Bukowski died, so he didn't have any input into it. For Bukowski's own perspective on the whole movie-making process and what it does to his work, see his novel "Hollywood." It's worth reading.By the way, Bukowski does have another link to the movie business--he used to be a drinking buddy of Leonard DiCaprio's Dad. Any time spent reading Bukowski's actual writings--prose or poetry--is time well spent.--B2

hall895 A boring movie about a miserable loser...that's Factotum in a nutshell. Matt Dillon plays Henry Chinaski, alter ego of author Charles Bukowski upon whose novel the film is based. As we meet Chinaski he may be a writer but he's certainly not a successful one. He floats through life, getting fired from one menial job after another and not caring a bit. The fact that he's always drunk may have something to do with his not caring. He meets a woman, Jan, played by Lili Taylor and a relationship ensues. Chinaski moves into Jan's apartment and now instead of getting drunk by himself he can get drunk with somebody else. Good times. Eventually he's had enough of this relationship so Chinaski strikes out on his own. Unfortunately he still can't hold down a job so soon enough he's broke. At this point Marisa Tomei shows up and for some reason her character, Laura, decides to rescue this miserable drunken loser whom she doesn't even know. We soon meet some of Laura's acquaintances and the film veers off into a sort of bizarro world with this rather eclectic bunch. Soon enough Tomei and friends are out of the picture and once again we're left with Chinaski and his drinking and his miserable little life. There's some more time spent with Jan but mostly there's just time spent being a drunk, unemployable loser. And then the movie's over and not a moment too soon. 94 minutes of absolute monotony and it seems infinitely longer as the movie drags on. Nothing happens. Nothing ever happens. If you want to spend an hour and a half of your life watching Matt Dillon drink then this is the movie for you. If you're looking for a compelling story, well developed characters or any entertainment value whatsoever then you've come to the wrong place. Dillon's performance actually isn't bad at all. Too bad the movie which surrounds him is in fact rather bad.

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.