Reviews

The merit of this movie is that confronted grief, and tried to do so seriously. We know that in daily life, it is hard for any human being just to grief or talk about loss. When I read the critics I see that they have praised this fact but have mentioned that the movie didn't know if to be a comedy or a drama.

Grief, life and humor are intertwined in real life. I am no saying that Jennifer Aniston ruined a masterpiece about grief or that the movie didn't have other faults but wherever she is "being herself" (which is Jennifer Aniston over and over) with her fidgeting, her usual getting stuck to pronounce words or express herself,the usual movements of her head like saying hello?? Her superfluous acting, her not getting deep in any emotions, when all this happens any other efforts are cheapen out. She makes everything around look light, silly, frivolous. And for more than others feel what they do and believe their characters , she doesn't seem to have any fiber on her. The only movie when I saw a different performance of JA was "The good girl" but nothing else after that.

I was moved by a concept conveyed here: "all these counselors and people that tell us what to do and they haven't examined themselves". That is important. Or the guilt issue which always accompany any grief. When Walter said "I couldn't hold him" this might seem very simple but convey these little details that stay with people when they lose someone and start thinking what they might have done different. And there is little comfort. Aaron Eckhart has this warmth about him that makes him believable. I understand if people don't like the movie, but I think that they tried and the casting of JA didn't help in this effort.

It is worthwhile to mention Martin Sheen and John Carroll Lynch as very convincing and effortless performances.

Kevin James moves and when he does, it is very funny.Chris Farley, despite being heavy moved fast and goofy and that was hilarious. It is the same case with Kevin James. A physical comedy,animals being stars too and helping to make it even more refreshing,primitive and physical.

I laughed. I found that going all animal on conqueringis smart and it is a good concept

Whatever Kevin James does, he does it so naturally and effortless that I have always enjoyed his work.

And by the way, animals talk, they do, only without our words, so this movie was sort of the translation of what they could say if we would only understand.

I don't see any comments about Jonny Lee Miller performance as Jordan Chase (Eugene Greer) but I can not get over his American accent. Being British, this is as good as it gets.

Peter Weller did an amazing job as Liddy, I am glad they gave him the chance to show his versatility, the poor guy is only famous for Robocop! He really convinced as a dirty cop, tough and merciless to get his position back.

And by the way, I had never seen Jonny Lee Miller playing a bad guy, but he did a fine job as well. Sober, restraint, repressed and very mean, dominating others to do what he didn't have the courage to do.

I was very impressed with Gasman's performance in the original movie. He is so good that he looks like a real blind person without over- acting. And his anger is credible without having to yell all the time. He is abrasive and vulnerable.

As a matter of fact Pacino looks like a blind person in other movies since his eyes don't focus in any object or person. Frank Caliendo in his stand up " All Over the Place" makes a very funny impersonation of Pacino and how he never looks at the other actor's eyes.

Don't get me wrong. I think Pacino had good movies, Serpico and other performances that I enjoyed but this movie got 7.8 either because people haven't seen the original or saw this one first and never realized that Gasman made this character real and probably inspired Pacino's performance.

One good movie to appreciate Gasman's talent is " The easy life" (Il sorpasso in Italian) and he has many others that I don't remember the title but watched them in Havana and made a lasting impression until today.

In the beginning Nora looks at her face in the mirror with tremendous sadness, trying to get ready to smile out there.

Later we see a a not very convinced Drea de Matteo listening to her husband's speech about love and marriage. Both of them (Nora and her friend) take medications (I don't think this is a coincidence in the movie) maybe Prozac? But nothing is solved, just like in real life, you live with your problems day after day.

Nora complains that she doesn't have luck with men but with Melvin she started complicating things for no reason and freaking out for the wrong reasons too. His face reflects awe when he witness so much unexpected drama. (the incident in the bakery is a good example) Is it random that he is French and she is American? I would like to think so.

The yoga, the pills, the drinking to relax, the thinking that sleeping with someone the first night will influence the outcome of a relationship, are all interesting and common events/thoughts that don't really make their lives better. One is married and the other one is not but yet, they are suffering. And this suffering, it seems to me that the movie suggests it, is not only related to the men, but to something withing themselves.

A foreseeable story. A very linear story.

Illumination and faith is a continuous so just going to another country to look for guidance is a naive cliché, only people with some money can afford this!

Then, love. All happened in a very ideal order and manner.

And Julia Roberts: she is refreshing, nice and smiles a lot in her movies but I think that none of her roles are played with fiber or depth (my opinion) hence she is the perfect actress for this fluff.

The phrases are slogans, the title itself sounds like a fastidious mantra, an empty motto from a divorced woman that could afford to do all this. Not that having the money to do it make her superficial, but just the way she did it and her telling others this story that has little to do with real life or real suffering.

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.

For speaking Spanish, a great effort, and a good performance. He is a very versatile actor. I, too, thought that the creepy factor of the movie was going to rest on the child and her situation but I found that the fear was instilled by putting these men in a foreign town and in a situation out of control.

The movie opens with a song about "war" and I think this feeling predominated in the movie. I also found creepy the transformation of the more docile character (Paul's friend)

I also found that although the movie repeated some stereotypes from other scary movies, it was done in a sober manner. The performances (of the men specially) were good and credible. Maybe we were expecting a more "chilling" movie, but I took it for what it seems to be: a war among men, natives and foreigners, the primal versus a more civilized attitude but at the end: all primal.