User Reviews

The leading figure in Factotum (which means a jack of all trades) is Henry Chinaski. The movie, written and directed by Bent Hamer, a Norwegian, is based on the novel of the same name by Charles Bukowski, who died in 1994. Like Chinaski, Bukowski was a drunk, indulged in casual sex, and liked to gamble; and most of Bukowski's books, including Factotum, are based on his own experiences in and out of blue collar worker. Also, like his creator, Chinaski is a writer, albeit unpublished as yet. Nevertheless, it is probably best NOT to approach this film as a partial biography of Bukowski, but simply as a fictional movie based on his writings.

Chinaski, played by Matt Dillon, is the ultimate, irresponsible goof-off, living just above the level of skid row, who gets work when he needs cash for booze etc, but invariably gets fired within days or weeks. Told not to smoke in a particular workplace, he lights up once the boss is out of the way; asked to make a delivery, he drives the van away while it's still connected to an electric plug, leaves the van door open and drifts into a bar. Even outside work, he behaves perversely - notably leaving ointment on his private parts overnight, when he's been told that one hour is the absolute limit! And Chinaski, though initially appearing mildly passive, is not averse to violence, even to women.

The man's sole redeeming features are his belief in himself as a writer, and his persistence in writing and submitting his work. (His main redeeming feature should be his actual talent for writing, but the film gives us little evidence of this, except for a few Bukowski quotes, which in any case are mainly about his belief in himself.) .

Dillon fits this role like a glove. By turns, he sleepwalks, staggers and rampages through the movie - that is, when Chinaski isn't drinking in bars or sleeping it off with or without a woman. And, because this is fiction rather than biography, Dillon can mitigate his deplorable behaviour and slovenly dress simply with his good looks and dark eyes. One suspects that in real life Bukowski was far less likable than his cinematic alter ego.

Chinaski's main squeeze for most of the movie, bravely and quite unglamorously portrayed by Lili Taylor, is Jan who shares her lover's fondness for alcohol and a slacker life. In one sequence, when he has split from Jan, Chinaski encounters a glossier woman, Laura (Marisa Tomei), who introduces him to a more bourgeois world; but this doesn't last long, and he soon reverts to his usual round of drink and casual jobs. (Incidentally, I found the sound quality in the whole Marisa Tomei sequence quite poor, and missed much of the dialogue.)

I'm not too sure what anybody uninterested in Bukowski (or Matt Dillon) will make of this movie; but if you're looking for somjething in English other than blockbusters, rom-coms, costume dramas etc - this is it. And, whatever your view of the movie, if you haven't already done so, read some Bukowski - you'll love it!

If you remember that Bent Hamer made the little film about a Forties Scandinavian household efficiency program called Kitchen Stories, you'll be partially prepared for the dry, sardonic style of this follow-up feature, the Charles Bukowski-based epic of seedy living Factotum, in which Matt Dillon gives a stylized, restrained performance as the authorial stand-in, Hank Chinaski, and Lili Taylor and Marisa Tomei seamlessly slide into the roles of Hank's alcoholic girlfriends Jan and Laura. Bulked up with a zombie stare, stifled voice and shambling walk, Dillon is very good, if, due partly to script limitations, not as compelling as Mickey Rourke in Barbet Schroeder's Barfly. Even overweight and horribly dressed Dillon is still far too handsome to resemble the pockmarked and ugly real-life Bokowski, but you can't fault good looks in a leading man, and the film is dominated by Dillon's character, who's in every scene, his narrative voice brought in to move the episodic plot along and provide Bukowski's insistent commentary on life as he sees it.

Those episodes are all we get, and apart from brief writing and longer romantic interludes, they mainly concern a long round of short-lived jobs -- sorting pickles in a pickle factory, boxing brake shoes, dusting statues, driving a cab (a hard-on's no danger to the driver, the instructor says, but sneezing is), assembling bike parts, and so on, from which Hank is unfailingly soon fired for drunkenness or lateness, insubordination or other misdemeanors -- whereupon he goes back to writing, drinking, and sex -- which latter, Jan tells him, is no good when he gets successful as he does for a while playing the horses. (There's none of the post office sorting job Bukowski did for a long time.) For Bukowski and his alter ego being a seedy loser is a thing carried off with such chutzpah that it's sexy -- and drinking and sex are equally close ways to feed the libido. There are plenty of the ten-cent aphorisms the tireless writer worked at, and there's a plug for the Black Sparrow Press that eventually started to keep and publish his endlessly mailed out submissions and today still survives off maintaining the slob genius' oœvre in public hands.

Bokowski appeals to the young, the easily impressed, the hard drinking, and those who like the pithy sayings and ignore the arrested development. For those of bourgeois mentality and upbringing there's a certain imperishably tonic thrill in watching a man who's been down so long it looks like up; who can tell the employer who's just fired him to give him his severance check immediately so he can hurry up and get drunk; for whom no flophouse or flat is too seedy, no bibulous girlfriend a worse drunk than he. How liberating it might be not to care about losing everything, knowing that since paper and pen are nearly free you'll never stop writing: or if you lose heart for a minute or two, a dip into the works of some other writer will encourage you in the belief that you can do better. Bokowski was a tough one.

Matt Dillon is Irish enough to have seen something of the hard drinking life himself. One senses that he knows whereof he speaks and can convey the alcoholic lifestyle without irony or melodrama. There's nothing quite like Lili Taylor coming out in her underwear to fix Hank a meal. His request is for another round of pancakes. "There's still no butter," she says. "Well, they'll be extra crisp," he replies.

In a smaller but still choice role Marisa Tomei is well disguised as another drunken lady Hank goes home with, finding that she lives with a flaky French millionaire called Pierre (Didier Flamand) with a little yacht and dreams of composing an opera. Hank's been taken off so many two bit jobs being fired has no sting left for him. Bukowski's persona is impenetrable and he's a simple survivor: he's almost utterly resistant to the forces of change his wayward lifestyle would activate in lesser beings and hence, unlike the downward spiraling drunk so movingly played by Nick Cage in Leaving Las Vegas, Bukowski's Hank in Dillon's performance cannot build toward pathos or true depth. As suggested, this film doesn't develop its sequences and relationships as thoroughly as Barfly, for which Bukowski himself wrote the screenplay, giving it a continuity and focus Factotum's more cobbled-together script doesn't quite muster.

There's something condescending and cultish in the European cultivation of the Bukowski myth in which this is another short chapter. Factotum is an occasionally amusing, at moments laugh-out-loud kind of movie that's well served by all the principals and by director Hamer's dry wit and restraint, but after the desultory and boring stretches have eventually started to pile up you may begin to say: So what? and wish the fresh novel feel of the early scenes could've been better sustained throughout. Not to fault the editing, but mightn't a native's keener ear for the rhythms of the dialogue have kept the flow going better? This is one to see if you like Matt Dillon or Bukowski; otherwise, save your time.

'A man or woman of all work' is indeed what Matt Dillon is in this out-there adaptation of Bukowski stories. Bent Hamer directs in this brilliant and quirky tale of a man who walks through life doing odd-jobs to fund his booze, gambling and womanising habits.

Henry Chinaski is made real by the always brilliant Matt Dillon. It really is no surprise that Hollywood's former pin-up embodies the part so well, as his perfected mix of sleaze and slack minded cool have made him the renowned actor he is. From 'Over the Edge' in 1979, the award winning 'Drugstore Cowboy' and his recent role as the scarred cop in 'Crash', Dillon really has the ability to expose man's flaws and run to a bar with them.

The film is spliced from various Bukowski writings and follows Chinaski (his alter-ego) around town as he drinks from job to job occasionally taking time to get fired and get laid. Lily Taylor and Marisa Tomei play two of Chinaski's bed-pals with equal sleaze and conviction.

This is not your usual movie in terms of subject matter and execution. It takes a Norwegian director, committed actors and a fantastic performance from Dillon to pull off a story that really is as much a Homage to Bukowski but also a bold attempt to deliver something different, a word not regularly accepted in today's Hollywood run industry. (Hence some of the finance coming from Japan).

From our introduction to Chinaski's routines of getting work and drinking; then losing work and drinking to watching what is essentially a horrible man (his treatment of woman, his lack of respect for anything) we are never really meant to like him. So why do we? It isn't just the looks or square jaw of the lead (Bukowski was the complete opposite) or his fantastic humorous charm but what lies beneath those eyes. Dillon has always been able to make the jerk likable. In this case, we do because he's funny and because we get a tiny glimpse of background reasoning why this man is so talented and yet so flawed. (The real Bukowski suffered a tough childhood and Chinaski's family is only referenced to in a hilarious scene of steak and ass- you'll see what I mean…).

Bent Hamer has accomplished a feat pretty standard in European film-making traditions- light comedy with black undertones outside of the rules of the usual three part formation. This tale could have started anywhere and ended anywhere in this man's life as the selling point it simply having Dillon on screen as this character- that is the story.

Bukowski was a genius who stuck to his loose morality with his back to society. It should be noted that he held down jobs for long periods, one for 12 years while doing what he did best, drinking and gambling but the only time he truly engaged was when he was observing for his writings, looking for funding i.e. work or needed a female drink buddy. He later had works published, hung around with Sean Penn (also considered for the role) and U2 dedicated a song to him.

The cast and crew have created a delightful fresh film that is both funny and dark. The performances are as authentic as ever with a mention going to Lily Taylor's career best performance. This film is a Jack of all trades and seems to have mastered a new one with the tone and atmosphere set perfectly to mirror the down and dirty LA Bukowski became part of.

It would seem that Henry Chinaski takes Polonius' advice to heart. This adaptation shows a character who is always true to himself, no matter the consequences. Matt Dillon's portrayal of Chinaski is solid; his self-effacing style makes him way more likable than might be otherwise. Lili Taylor does a lovely job as his sometime girlfriend Jan. Their scenes together are always interesting (with or without bandages), with the characters being constantly developed.

The dialog has lots of pop. Somewhat a film noir, somewhat a comic book, the film has a nice feel with the first person narration of Chinaski taking us on his tour. It could have been in black and white but is nicely filmed in color. One of those slightly rare movies as at home at a film festival (Cleveland's, in this case) or at your local theater.

Factotum means "jack of all trades", and Matt Dillon interprets the role of a drunk trying nothing but to survive from day to day. He has no ambition, he doesn't have to compete with anyone, he makes part of no desirable demographic group and doesn't want a white picket fence.

He drinks, smokes, womanizes :), and writes all the time. His writing (much like Charles Bukowski's, the author of the book this movie is based on, dead in 1994 at 74 years old) is based on his own life and feelings and seems compulsional: he needs to write more than he needs to be read.

Now, about the movie. It is rather slow paced, close to boring. Matt Dillon plays very well his role and he has never looked and felt like Bruce Campbell in his life. When the movie ended, though, I felt I have been enriched somehow. A lot of the modern pressure of proving something, having a home, getting a job, the things that we start to think define us, all these things have no power on Matt Dillon's character. Of course, in Romania such a guy would have starved a long time ago, but still... A bit like The Big Lebowski, it shows that there are alternate lifestyles right next to us. You can make the choice to lose women, friends, family, but go all the way in the direction of your choosing. And after all, this is what Factotum is all about.

Bottom line: you need to be in the mood for a slow film, but it is worth it.

I saw the earlier Kitchen Stories by director Bent Hamer in a cinema in Berlin in 2004, which was an absolute delight. When I heard he was going to direct an adaptation of Bukowsky's work, I was surprised, given the very different material he handled in the rural Nordic settings in Scandinavia. So it seemed an odd choice to direct a movie like this, but it turns out to be a very refreshing and welcome take at "The Bukowsky Case".

Essentially, this film is about the despairs of alcoholism, frighteningly brought to life by an array of simply stunning performances. Matt Dillon as Henry Chinasky is literally sweating alcohol. His face is red and swollen, he looks absolutely horrible. Once handsome but now an absolute has-been, who's sole interests are booze, gambling, sex and writing. People don't interest him at all, including the women, sex is all that interests him, if only mildly. Lily Taylor is a perfect match as his female interest and fellow barfly. But the real kudos are for Marisa Tomei in a relatively minor role but she really burns off the screen, alcohol set on fire. A real treat.

It might not be a typical Bukowski-movie, in the sense of his sometimes brash, aggressive, perhaps even typical direct American style, so fans of his work might judge this movie very differently and perhaps argue this is not the real spirit of Bukowsky put to the screen. But director Hamer handles it with such warmth, humor, sly wit and at times very sharp observations that you really shouldn't care about this. Judge it on its own merits.

Camera Obscura --- 9/10

Factotum is a quantum movie. Or rather in its efforts to depict the chaotic life of radical writer Charles Bukoska's autobiographical alter ego Henry Chinaski, the paradoxes and inherent uncertainties of quantum theory seem an apt metaphor.

Hank, like Bukowska is a dedicated alcoholic drifting indifferently through any odd jobs he can con his way into then disdainfully neglect until he is inevitably 'canned', spend the pay-off on booze and then ricochet randomly off to repeat the process elsewhere. It is as if, like the theory, through his alcoholic haze Hank sometimes has an idea of where he's going but isn't really clear where he actually is. Alternatively he sometimes has sense of where he is, but none at all of where he's going. Like a particle with no discernible fixed identity, he bounces randomly around the world colliding with people, places and events of which he is part, but in which he makes no stable intentional intervention and to which he displays no discernible interest. This process is constantly re-fuelled by a 24/7 intake of alcohol and nicotine. If this sounds incredible then we should remember that the real Bukowska's body survived this punishing regime for 74 years until his death in 1994.

If this were all, then Norwegian Director Bent Hamer's film would not be the absorbing work that it is. For through this fog of alcohol shines the dim light of Hank's determination to write. Not in the least for its rewards or recognition, but because it forms the nucleus of his fragile identity. And through the excellent use of Hank as narrator, the stark, clinical, austere quality of Bukowski's writing emerges. This is the poetry of skid row, the unsentimental, unflinching account of life at the margins of normal society about which Hank is entirely indifferent and Bukowsa himself viewed with contempt. There is a brief, doomed, flirtation with the idea that we might have some control over our destiny through Hank's initially successful foray into betting the horses. Racing I guess offers the illusion that even if God plays with dice, with a bit of determined effort a man might beat the odds. Of course this ends in failure - the house always wins in the end.

The paradox of quantum theory is that the precise and rigorous lucidity of the language of science, expresses a view of the world of matter that is devoid of certainty and inherently rests upon mere probabilities. Similarly Hank's island of lucidity is the drive to write; to create a meaningful response to a meaningless world. His behaviour is as random and unpredictable as the chaotic, senseless events of the world that provoke it. Yet an urge to coherence emerges through his irresistible drive to write about that world. He has simple appetites: alcohol, nicotine and sex and no moral, emotional scruple gets in the way of satisfying them. He is drawn into transitory friendships and fragile sexual relationships by the basic need to drink, smoke and have sex. The only relationship he has with any semblance of continuity and personal satisfaction is with fellow alcoholic Jan.They share these basics needs and arrive at a kind a stable modus vivendi where they are fully met without having to wander about the world hoping to pick them up in a run down bar. Jan's predilection for leaping into bed with every random bum she takes a fancy to, the dirtier the better, eventually fractures this sex-of-convenience arrangement. Here Hank packs his bag and leaves with the air of a guy popping out for a night's bowling rather than walking away from the only half-way stable relationship he's ever had. This fictional account mirrors Bukowska's own 10 year relationship with Janet Cooney-Baker also a long-term alcoholic who eventually lost her fight with the booze in 1962.

Hank lives in a down-beat, dead-beat world where his holy trinity of physical appetites are the only distraction from that world to which he is always, by choice, an outsider. The film is visually and aurally dark in tone. Yet through this, Hamer's screenplay, leaning I suspect heavily on Bukowska's own writing, cuts clinically and strikingly like a surgeon's knife making an incision to open up to the unflinching eye, the diseased or damaged part of life that may need surgical repair or excision. This is writing honed to a razor-sharp edge that is simply startling and despite inducing a sense of recoil, exercises a strange fascination. If I have a regret, it is that more might have been made of the occasional moments of darkly ironic humour flashing like flinty sparks out of the sheer absurdity of the many irredeemably hopeless situations Hank stumbles into. I don't now Bukowska's work but occasionally in this film Hank's blurred perspective seems to be a weary "so what?" in response to the world: at others there is a flash of rebellion that engages us much more.If there is much of Hank Chinaski to like we find it here.

Matt Dillon is a revelation and has never for my money done anything remotely in this league before. Lili Taylor is equally convincing as bed and bottle-mate Jan and even manages to tease a kind of pathetic tenderness out of the role. Marisa Tomei is effective as one of Hank's random, ricochet lays who is locked into a very weird foursome with two female friends and an older man who manipulates sex from all three by funding their booze and basic needs.

Factotum is no nice night out at the movies. Its darkness is as heavy as it context would imply. Yet it is constantly absorbing and thought-provoking. It is immensely successful in portraying the world and experience of an autobiographical character based upon a writer both Jean Genet and Jean-Paul Sartre called "America's greatest poet" This 'factotum', jack-of-all-trades, late in his writing life, by all accounts became master of one. Off-the-wall, in-the-gutter but cinematically on-the-money.

Zettel

I swear, I felt like taking a nice swig of some liquor, after watching it. This movie, is character driven, and Matt Dillon plays Henry Chinaski, a quite amusing character that calls himself a writer and goes on about life hitting the bottle, and finding new jobs and going through the motions with total disregard of it, the movie doesn't have an overall theme though, is just a more casual movie, with a very entertaining in a dark way character. The constant bar scenes, the constant drinking, that dark lull of it, has an odd and quite dark attraction to it. Some will say, that Chinaski slow crawl to degeneration will make someone be turn off to drinking. But quite the opposite, at least for me.

This movie is not recommended for everyone, but if you stick around long enough, it could be a nice surprise though.

Bent Hamer has become one of the most celebrated Norwegian directors of recent times that DIDN'T spawn from the Norwegian new wave that helped lift the average quality of Norwegian film production out of the quagmire it was in. He was one of the few who was worth keeping around of the previous generation, and one of the few who didn't need to be influenced by Detektor or Mongoland.

With titles such as Eggs (1995) and Salmer fra kjøkkenet (2003) he has long since established himself as a more than competent director with the ability of transferring emotion to film without losing credibility or affecting the narrative disfavourably. Factotum is no exception.

Factotum is the absolute opposite of the trend in Norwegian film making, the feel-good comedy wave that has swept the scene, and is quickly becoming redundant. If the scene does not renew itself and develop, Norwegian film making will end up the way it did pre-the new wave. Or then again, it mightn't. We still have Bent Hamer, and he has yet to make a film with Kristoffer Joner who, despite being one of our best actors, is also the most abused, appearing in pretty much everything that comes out. That is, with the exception of Hamer's work. Thankfully. May it stay that way. Bent Hamer might possibly be the best contemporary Norwegian director there is.

Now, regarding Factotum. Casting Matt Dillon, despite the critique this move has received, was a stroke of genius. Many feel he was wrongly cast (for instance, because he is not as ugly as Bukowski was. What the hell kind of argument is that, anyway?), but this truly is a misconception. Dillon manages to summon up the very essence of Henry Chinaski; his attitude, his stance, his walk - after seeing this film I doubt anyone else could ever play Chinaski again; never mind Barfly. Dillon looks atrocious; like a shadow of a former self, so marinated in alcohol and defeatist attitude that he can do nothing else in the world but indulge in these two sins. Oh, and live to write about it. This is not a pretty-boy who will melt teenage girls' hearts. This is low-life, urban white-trash America. This is Henry Chinaski. And what he does - in perfect harmony with Hamer's movie-making magic - is to convey that emotion so brilliantly well to the audience. I personally had previously only had three powerful resonance effects after films in the past (I suppose I am too jaded for it to be a generality): Requiem for a Dream and the two versions of Insomnia (the Norwegian Erik Skjoldbjærg-original with Stellan Skarsgaard, and Cristopher Nolan's remake, with what must be dubbed Pacino's greatest performance to date). The latter two made me feel like I hadn't slept for a week. Factotum made me feel like I had been drinking for a week. And I badly needed another drink when I came out of the theater. This is a truly amazing experience, and as far as I am concerned, a very rare event. This alone was worth watching the film. Woe unto the US if it is released directly on DVD - the American audience deserve to see it on the silver screen.

As far as the story goes, most of it follows Factotum pretty closely, with a few changes and updates (the story is set to modern day), with influences from a good selection of Bukowski's additional writing. As far as dubbing the book "the weakest" (ref. these forums) and wondering why Hamer and producer Jim Stark chose to filmatize this one out of the bunch, it is, in my observation, the book that best exemplifies Henry Chinaski, and thusly serves best as a cross-section of his existence. Post-Office or Women would have been too thematic, and Ham on Rye mainly details his upbringing. Factotum was the logical choice.

To close, I am not naming this the best film I have ever seen, or anything of the like, but it is still truly a masterpiece, a perfect rendition of slow-paced, low-life urbanity and alcoholism, and an excellent interpretation of Bukowski's writing. If you are lucky enough to see it in the theaters, you should do so - at least if you are a long-time fan, or only passing reader, of Bukowski.

This movie can't be discussed in depth without at least passing mention or comparison with Barfly. The two movies covered the same person, namely Bukowski's alter ego Henry Chianski and the two films even share a few of the same exact scenes. Each movie has humor but each takes it's own approach. Barfly went for the sheer exuberance at low life lifestyles. Factotum approaches the humor from a more sadness of the world level. I prefer the former to the later.

I'd like to praise Matt Dillon for bringing more light to the works of Charles Bukowski but he seems to have done with out the joie de vivre that Bukowski seem to have in starts and fits. As a film itself the movie is well acted and though it's pacing suffers from points of near inactivity it manages to keep just enough attention to bring us through the end. The presence of Frank Stallone in the movie is greatly missed. After typing that out i still can't believe it.

First, my only gripes with the film are about authenticity. And they're just because I'm a huge fan of Charles Bukowski. I've never thought of Matt Dillon as a "great" actor. But I thought Dillon's role as Bukowski was just okay. I almost can't quite put my finger on it. He looks a decent bit Like Buk, but his actual performance seems almost too much like a mediocre impression. I don't know. It's just not very natural or convincing or something. I'm not an acting coach. He just didn't click with me as Bukow...*ahem*, Chinaski, anyway.

As a whole the film just didn't capture the feel of the Bukowski novel. It seemed too clean for some reason. The whole film just seemed a lot more tame than the literature. His writing captures this great sense of adventure, danger, and a frequent raw vulgarity. But also, it has a very artful heart to it. The movie missed this entirely, in my opinion.

But believe it or not though, I still think it's a good movie. Outside the actual interpretation of Charles Bukowski's novel, it's still fun watch, with generally good performances, and a phenomenal story to have been based on.

As Barfly is one of my favorite movies of all time, I was very interested in seeing how Matt Dillon would take over the Chinaski reigns. At first it was a little disconcerting because Dillon plays it almost the polar opposite of what Rourke did. While Rourke was out there, Dillon was very quiet but in a hilarious, Jim Jarmusch kind of way. One scene that was so indicative of the writer wanting to be left alone is when a co-worker is looking forward to meeting Chinaski, and the meeting is filled with silence.

Matt Dillon has matured into a great actor and I am glad he was nominated for Crash, and I would like to see him nominated for this too. Marisa Tomei and Lili Taylor were also wonderful. There are two scenes that are taken directly from Barfly, which is also interesting to see. Any fan of Bukowski's work must see this excellent film

I haven't read the book this movie is based on (yet), but as a movie it contains all that is likable (and reprehensible) about Buk. Matt Dillon does an excellent job, really good feeling into his character, although the one flaw is that despite the dishevelled look he still appears too young and handsome for the part. I can't think of someone who could have done it better though. Cynicism, loss, alienation, booze, sex and art - it's all there, the pain and the adventure. You don't have to agree with Henry Chinaski's philosophy to be able to empathise with where his broken soul is coming from. Worth watching repeatedly, like a good book. Buk is in a class of his own, and not really a "beat" writer as he tends to be (mis)classified.

This movie does a poor treatment of portraying bukowski, completely missing out on his grittiness and dark humor. This movie might as well have been about any average joe with girl problems and job problems. Even worse than the script was Dillon's boring portrayal of Chinowski (Bukowski's alter ego). Seeing a dirty, decrepit, drunken man like bukowski in the lead role might have made this movie mildly interesting, but instead we have this overacting pretty boy horribly miscast. Additionally, the rest of the casting was equally atrocious-more watered down acting from the likes of Marissa Tomai, etc. If you want to see the real Bukowski on screen check out Barfly, which is not perfect, but much better, or better yet try to track down the old documentary video called ¨Bukowski drinks, smokes, and talks,¨ which has candid footage of bukowski boozing, chain smoking, driving around the sleaziest parts of LA and yelling at his girl friend. Once you've seen this, you'll realize what garbage Factotum really is. Perhaps this movie would be great if you know nothing about bukowski but love this Dillon guy (I pity you).

This was truly a great film! First of all, I was a little bit hesitant because Dillon seemed like an awful case of miscasting in the role of Chinaski. I was very surprised to see that not only he pulled it off fantastically, but also at times there was an obvious resemblance between Buko and Dillon (the bulky frame, the protruding chin etc...).

The movie follows with astonishing faithfulness the rhythm of Bukowski's novels with its anecdotal structure, minimal but sharp dialogues, almost unnoticeable alternation between laughing-out-loud funny and depressingly pathetic etc...

Anyone who loves Bukowski's work like I do shouldn't miss this movie.

There's no getting around the fact that Matt Dillon cannot possibly make himself ugly enough to look anything like Bukowski actually did, but he does his best to capture the writer's posture and way of carrying himself. If the end result does not resemble Bukowski as much as it does Humphrey Bogart, it is only because Matt Dillon is a good-looking actor. I suppose he could have tried to match Buk's voice more though. In all fairness, the film does try to capture some of Bukowski's harsher edges (his violence against women for example), in an effort to counteract the sense of sterilization brought about by the generally good-looking performers (sure, Lili Taylor may not be the best-looking actress around, but she's still in much better shape than a wino like she depicts would be). The use of very formal, long camera takes is an unexpected but interesting choice (and shows the film's Scandinavian roots), although the distance it brings adds a further sense of cleanliness into what is essentially very gritty subject matter. Of course, the film is supposed to be a comedy, and this camera technique does help to give the film a deadpan Jarmusch/Kaurismaki edge to it (although it still isn't ecstatically funny). Oddly, the screenplay somehow feels over-reverent of Bukowski in some aspects (full Bukowski poems are heard, read by Dillon in a notably un-Bukowski like voice, on the soundtrack), and at the same time too broadly drawn. With it's rambling, episodic structure and predominant focus on Bukowski's relationships with women, the film at times begins to resemble not so much a specific biography but rather any number of other stories about aimless twenty-something aspiring artist types and their relationship troubles (think "Jesus Son"). Luckily in my case, I have a naturally high affinity for these types of stories anyway, so it didn't bother me as it might someone more tired of these "angst and anomie among the young and bohemian" tales. Still, as far as on-screen Bukowski goes, your best bets are documentaries. The recent "Bukowski: Born Into This" is the most expansive, detailed, and definitive, but Barbet Schroeder's four-hour "Bukowski Tapes" is also worth seeing for it's intimate, in-depth nature, although it is exhausting and presented in a way that becomes repetitive. The "Bukowski At Bellevue" live performance video is interesting but unessential if you know the poems. But if fictional Buk is what you're after, I'd say that "Factotum" is definitely the way to go, relative to the limited choices that exist. As far as I'm concerned, "Barfly" is blandly crafted and over-acted, essentially reducing Bukowski to a drunken buffoon. "Tales of Ordinary Madness" is generally considered atrocious, though I have only seen a few minutes of it myself. "Crazy Love" is not really about Bukowski at all, and is a terrible film to boot. "Factotum" perhaps merely trades one cliché vision of Bukowski for another (in "Factotum"'s case, Bukowski as a sort of suave, troubled yet romantic working-class genius), but at least "Factotum"'s I can not only tolerate, but find enjoyable watching.

Matt Dillon is excellent as Henry Chinaski, author Charles Bukowski's literary alter ego, in this big screen adaptation of Bukowski's novel of the same name and some of his other stories.

The story of the film is simply Henry, a maintenance drunk, trying to remain employed so he can make enough money to allow him to write, the only thing that really matters to him. However the women, gambling and looking for jobs often get in the way.

Funny, sad and touching this is a zen-like meditation of a life lived on the fringes of society. Its a hard film to say more about since the film unfolds like a booze fueled slice of life. Its at times as if you've turned a camera on the people down at the local dive bar, but commented on by the smartest most literate guy in the place. You'd like to dismiss the witticisms as clever writing except that this was the life that Bukowski lived and wrote about.

I liked the movie a great deal but only up to a point. The problem for me is that the film seems not to really have a point. Its just a slice of life where things happen and continue to happen well after the film ends. Its not a bad thing, since thats the way real life is, but I couldn't seem to shake the nation that the film was trying to get to some point that never arrived. If I could compare it to say Robert Altman's Short Cuts (or several other Altman films for that matter) where the film takes these small slices of life and interweaves them and really never comes to any conclusion and never seems to be angling things into any direction in particular, here you have what is an extended slice of life but it seems to want to have a point, while at the same time not have a point, or it wants to mirror Bukowski's writing but be be something more.

Its frustrating. Its very good, but very frustrating.

I just saw the film a few minutes ago and am still living in it - if one can say that. Matt Dillion was inspired. There was one moment, right before he strangles a guy at the racetrack, where he does a double take and looks exactly like his brother Kevin. So it must be genetic, their body action. Bukowski has never been my favorite writer. My dad was a street-guy, hanging out at bars and the like, so his writing is a bit too like my real life, for my taste...but it is the way it is and there was not one fake moment in it. The part with Marisa Tomei was very very good. Lily Taylor was exactly right...and their life together was precisely as seedy as the life of such people is. Go see it while it is still on the big screen and then write your own report. I think Matt looks exactly as he should for this part.

Rourke played a Hollywood's Bukowski in Barfly. That is why Bukowski didn't like it. But if you have seen documentaries of Bukowski, footage, pictures and read his books, maybe you find that Factotum is very close to Bukowski's real appearance and attitude

Dillon doesn't look like Bukowski at all but he did honor him in this movie and this you can see in his walking, his soft and low voice and his whole attitude through the movie. It is hard to portray Bukowski's life in a movie but I remember particularly the scenes where you see Dillon dropping his writings in the mailbox, having bad jobs and being homeless, all of which was a big part of Bukowski's life before he reached fame and made decent money.

They even took the time to show a little about Bukowski's relationship with his father (whoever has read Ham on Rye could think that Buk's father in real life could have behave like the one in the movie (a despotic and acid man)

Also memorable were his thoughts on writing and writers. The movie gave me the same feeling I get when I read Ch B. poetry or novels, but this is only my experience. I do trust the feelings and I think that this movie was done with respect and love for this writer and all what he went through before being discovered.

Many reviewers say they didn't "get" the movie or that it wasn't about anything. I felt the same way until I realized maybe that's the point. This film addresses the question, What is success? Is success only what our society defines success as? Or can success really be something else altogether? Something of our own making.

If I had known it was about Charles Bukowski when I was watching it, I might have appreciated it a little more. I'm a fan of his blunt way of writing. Bukowski was primarily a poet and he had a terrible childhood, which obviously affected his entire life and worldview.

Definitely not a film for the suicidal or depressed or alcoholic. By the end I needed a stiff drink and a bottle of sleeping pills.

I have read the novel as well as numerous other Bukowski novels. I understand having to cut a lot out of Factotum to make a movie - it would almost work better as a cable miniseries a la Armisted Maupin's "Tales of the City," taking four or so weeks and spanning say six hours. But what is sooo bad about this adaptation is that it does not in the least capture the vitality and energy not to mention dark humor of Bukowski's writing. When you are reading Bukowski (especially one of his best like Factotum) you can't put it down. You find yourself laughing uncontrollably. There is no fat on the story. But somehow this hack of a director/writer has managed to make Bukowski seem languid and boring. Instead of coming across as a rebel, as he does in his books, he comes across as a dullard in this film. Unlike Bukowski's books, it almost makes you want to stop drinking. Also, Matt Dillon - while a fine actor and one of my favorites - is way too pretty and thin to play Bukowski. Decent make-up, hair, and clothes, but he just looks too much like a pretty boy even with all that. And worst of all is the complete lack of a story through-line. I know Factotum is the kind of anecdotal book that does not lend itself to film narrative, but the writer failed to even pull out one clear direction for this film and in the end you can't help but feel like you are watching nothing at all. Nothing interesting. Nothing of importance. Nothing!

Deliciously acerbic, wickedly funny, fast paced, expertly crafted dark comedy. Based on an autobiographical novel by the misanthropic Charles Bukowski, The Norwegian co-writer-director Bent Hamer, who made the droll 2003 comedy, "Kitchen Stories," has created a nearly perfect film here. Factotum, we are told in the opening credits, is a word that means "a person who performs many jobs." Indeed, the story is more-or-less organized around the myriad jobs sought and botched by the protagonist, unsuccessful short story writer and all around lowlife Henry Chinaski (Matt Dillon). The other principal organizing focus in Chinaski's life is the women he squeezes and drinks with, primarily slutty Jan (Lili Taylor) and, more passingly, the somewhat classier Laura (Marisa Tomei). Rounding out the cast are Henry's horse race handicapping buddy Manny (Fisher Stevens) and Pierre, a wealthy Frenchman who composes operas and surrounds himself with prostitutes (Didier Flamand).

If one were to posit a film genre called comedy noir - dark, devilish American comedies set in lowlife surrounds like taverns and sleazy apartments, when possible dimly lit and narrated by the anti-hero protagonist, intoning in flat, world-weary, matter-of-fact voiceovers, as in a Raymond Chandler detective story - then "Factotum" would be the defining film for this genre. What other films to include? Among recent ones, "Hustle & Flow" comes quickly to mind. "The Big Lebowski," and maybe some other films by the Coens. Quite a lot of Jim Jarmusch's oeuvre, but "Down By Law" for sure. Steve Buscemi's "Trees Lounge." "Pulp Fiction," of course. This film is steeped in richly cynical dialogue, well written (in collaboration with Jim Stark, who also co-wrote "Cold Fever"), well photographed (by John Christian Rosenlund), and well edited (alas, no credit is given for this achievement on either the IMDb or the film's own website). Dillon and Taylor give superb turns. My grade: 10/10 (A)

I think this movie couldn't be better, but the problem with Bukowski is how to make a movie out of his life, that is, his books. It is very hard to make a good film out of a Bukowski story. I think the film was OK, Matt Dillon characterization is great, even though I had preferred an older actor (Chris Cooper, Robert Duvall). The rest of the actors were fine too. I think anyways that taking Bukowski to the screen is pointless, I think you can only enjoy him in his books. The only good thing about this movie is that maybe it will take some new readers to Bukowski. It was short (at least here in Europe, I don't know how it will be edit in the USA), and I think that was intelligent. It was a good recreation of Bukowski atmosphere, so I rate this movie with a 6, and I think I'm being too generous.

Disclaimer: I am not particularly familiar with Charles Bukowski's work, and many of the other commenters to date compare this movie with his work. I don't have that point of view, so this is only about the movie.

A short story is a short story because it's meant to be short. Trying to put them together is like gluing together a pack of lifesavers. It may end up one big chunk, but there's not question that it was nothing more than it's individual pieces.

That's what this movie is like. It felt like a collection of short stories, held together only by one character who inhabits each of them. The segments could have been reordered in almost any combination and it would not have affected the film.

The acting was quite good, the dialogue was above average, and some of the film-making techniques were quite effective. The only thing the movie was missing was a point. The characters weren't engaging, and there was no plot to speak of. It was just a character study of uninspiring characters.

I'm sure that there was some reason to have made this movie. Perhaps Bukowski fans can relate to it better than I can, but I really didn't see the point.