Factotum

2006 "What matters most is how well you walk through the fire"
6.6| 1h34m| R| en| More Info
Released: 18 August 2006 Released
Producted By: Canal+
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

This drama centers on Hank Chinaski, the fictional alter-ego of "Factotum" author Charles Bukowski, who wanders around Los Angeles, CA trying to live off jobs which don't interfere with his primary interest, which is writing. Along the way, he fends off the distractions offered by women, drinking and gambling.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Canal+

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!
Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.
Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.
Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.
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.
HughBennie-777 Vastly superior movie to Barbet Schroeder's "Barfly", despite Mickey Rourke's entertaining performance in the latter. Novelist and poet Charles Bukowski's excellent (and some would say, unfilmable) book about the author's incredible unemployment and employment history, as well as your usual Bukowski boozing and fornicating with unhygienic women, receives an almost unheard of luxury in Hollywood: a decent script. Lead Matt Dillon is an undeniably odd casting choice when remembering Rourke's presence, or, worse, viewing actual pictures of Bukowski, who closely resembled a 116 year old, bloated, Native-American woman with bullet-riddled hide for skin, and a head the shape and size of the author's own buttocks. But Dillon captures more of Bukowski's less violent misanthropy and more of his gentleness and charm beneath the outbursts of drunken violence. Schroeder's film celebrated the obnoxious fist-fights, with supporting characters--more like drunk extras--staggering around in the worst cartoon performances since the hillbillies in "The Minstrel Killer". Whereas here, the people are downtrodden and f---ed up without losing their humanity. Lili Taylor is excellent as Dillon's closest thing to a steady girlfriend, and just as the movie sustains its share of sadness, there's plenty of grotesque laughs and clever dialogue: TAYLOR: "God said, love thy neighbor. DILLON: "Yeah, and he also said to leave him alone." One static shot of a typical Bukowski morning involving nausea, vomit, and beer is equally uplifting. And accurate. A well-paced movie to boot. The trailer and even the box art reeked of "indie" indulgence, but, instead, this is a tight, well-acted portrait of the true outlaw/outcast/artist that was Bukowski, rather than the bumbling pugilist Rourke created in "Barfly", plus that movie doesn't age for sh-t. Terribly sorry, Frank Stallone fans.
pforrest-2 Factotum is slightly redeemed by some good acting from the female characters, and a determined effort not to hide from the basic fact that the main character is an obnoxious, violent, unpleasant man. The trouble is that he is not very interesting, either. None of the characters has much to warm to or be interested by. The only sometimes-sympathetic character seems to have a split personality, which I put down to a crap script rather than anything deep and meaningful in the movie. Well-photographed, and generally professional production all round, but it failed to convince me that there was any worth in its subject matter. Matt Dillon seemed to be impersonating an early Jack Nicholson without an ounce of his roguish charm.
ge-ranma 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.