MovieChat Forums > Factotum (2005) Discussion > Rogert Ebert review of this movie

Rogert Ebert review of this movie

posted 13 years ago by piry12
10 replies | jump to latest

After being a respected movie critic for many years, Ebert's opinion will influence people's opinions. Not always.

If you don't like Bukoswski's books, it is likely that you won't like the movie. Even if you like Bukowski you might not like this movie. And that is fine.But Ebert said a few things that made me ignore his review. The first one is:

"This movie is about a man who rarely works and occasionally writes, but only as fleeting distractions from his boozing"

I didn't get that from the movie. Bukowski never wrote as a distraction from boozing. Writing was an important part of his life as boozing and other things. And he did have a period of time (years) that he stopped writing but he was a very prolific writer.

"Dillon doesn't seem quite slovenly or bloated or stinky or dissipated enough for this role. He's not romantic or bitter or disillusioned, just kind of wan and inert"

Inert might be reflection of disillusioned but Dillon did fight in the movie and had bitter responses more than once. As well as bitter thoughts. He does move slowly at times and talks with a soft voice, trying to capture Bukowski's way of talking and calmed exterior disguising anger and discontent. Stinky? How do you measure that in a movie? Dillon does look slovenly.

"He can even sound like a beery motivational speaker (or a Nike ad): "If you're going to try, go all the way. There is no other feeling like that. You will be alone with the gods. And the nights will flame with fire. You will ride life straight to perfect laughter. It's the only good fight there is"

What about Nike taking this from Bukoswki? Nah, that would be giving Nike too much credit. Ebert's opinion about this line is very superficial. There is a difference between the message that Bukowski gave to the aspiring writers and what Ebert seems to see as motivational psychobabble. Ebert has actually "gone all the way" with his reviews.

"How many people still read Bukowski in their 30s, 40s and beyond? "

I do and know other people that do too.

"Factotum doesn't have anything to reveal about Bukowski's art or his life"

Wrong. Bukowski messages were subversive and against phoniness. The movie portrays this very well because now we have the same problems: bad jobs, unfeeling people out there, pseudo talking and more. Dillon's narrative talks about wasting our lives in anger, talks about writing, passion, and most importantly being true to yourself. All these are timeless things.

"Nothing like David Cronenberg's illuminating and imaginative vision for fusing William S. Burroughs' biography with his fiction in "Naked Lunch." "Factotum" is just slumming"

Bukowski was very realistic and didn't talk in metaphors so we are talking about different authors' lives/styles hence different movies. I don't even know how he came out with this comparison. In Naked Lunch, Burroughs criticized society and government in codes. Bukowski didn't do it that way. But he did it and did it faithfully.And that's why people still read him. As to "slumming" if that's the feeling Ebert got out of the movie, then the movie succeeded. Bukoswki's life was slumming for many years.

I say Ebert stick to movies review and don't come and mix it with Literature review. That is a very tricky field. That is for us readers to decide. And if his opinion counts so does mine.

[–] boondock11387 13 years ago

Im right there with you. Just saw the movie on netflix and immediately looked up eberts review. I rarely look for his opinion now. I have my own and thats enough. The film is amazing and so is Dillon. Its a shame that the film couldnt even gross more than its budget.

[–] itssosublime 12 years ago

I think I see the point that Ebert is trying to make, though I agree with you both that he certainly seemed to miss the point. It's obvious that he looks down his nose at Bukowski's style, but at the same time he seems to understand it and almost be resentful at the fact. Personally, I thought Dillon did a great job portraying Hank's alter ego. He was Henry Chinaski, to a tee. I don't know who else could have portrayed him more accurately than maybe Bukowski himself, but that's an issue for debate, I suppose.

Assuming he read the novel, Ebert should remember that it follows almost precisely in it's footsteps and that Chinaski was not portrayed as any sort of prolific writer. The only real mention of his writing came as he described the 4-5 short stories per week that he would compose and send to Clay Gladmore of Frontfire magazine. Most of the book was spent describing his endless search for a daily wage, his relationship with various women and his propensity for drunkenness. What did he expect the film to "reveal" that the book had not?

He did get one thing right though, Lily Taylor was fantastic as "Jan".

[–] piry12 12 years ago

Yes, as you said, the film reveals what the book did. Factotum is a book about all the bad jobs he had, actually in the book he goes to different states and one job is worse than the next. Ebert review of Barfly (a movie Bukowski considered overdone by Hollywood)is not as negative. Ironically, in his book Hollywood, Bukowski mentions Ebert (under a different name) as a nice critic, he kind of like suggested Ebert wasn't as vicious as the other ones.

I don't know in what moment Ebert decided that "no one reads Bukowski anymore". It is not a fact, and the topics that Bukowski wrote about are still a problem today and I feel there will be for a while.

And I agree with you about Lily Taylor. The way Bukowski described Jan, his first love, really seems very close to what lily T. portrayed.

[–] ilia_davidovich 11 years ago

I discovered Bukowski about a year ago, and went through his entire prose in a month or two (stopped at Pulp, didn't finish it). I don't like poetry that much, and frankly, what I was able to read on-line didn't impress me enough, so I didn't read Bukowski's poetry. I liked Factotum more than his other novels. It seemed to have a balance, remaining coarse and brutal without getting too repulsive (like Women for example). Ham on Rye is as good, very close second. So, yes, people read Bukowski, I'm a good example.

As for the movie, I liked what Dillon did, but not entirely. I don't blame only him. I also blame the director. The movie as a whole lacks poignancy which is abound in "Tales of Ordinary Madness". Too many edges are softened, probably in attempt to appeal to the wider public. That said, there were a number of very powerful scenes, which clearly show how well the director understood the book.

I'm not sure I would rave about Lili Taylor performance. She did a great job, but something was missing for me. Maybe it's because I pictured Jan differently, I had a much prettier woman in my mind, but a wilder and more unstable at the same time. I didn't get that from Lili. Could be also because they decided not to show her transgressions, lazily falling back to use a narrator. She wasn't dangerous enough, not enough destructive force. From the book I felt, she was the crazy one, the one who drove herself and Chinaski insane. I didn't have a chance to see Barfly, so I wonder if Faye Dunaway was able to capture the character.

I don't think Bukowski is the right material for a Hollywood movie.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] burgesswa 10 years ago

This movie is a complete piece of crap. It has nearly nothing to do with Buk's novel, and the bits that do coincide are so poorly written and acted that it's painful. Any student of Bukowski - hell, even a casual reader, would know that Factotum covers a period of his life during the late '30's - early '40's. When Bukowski was in his early 20's. How old is Matt Dillon here - nearly 50. As for his capturing Bukowski's mannerisms, he misses the mark completely. Buk was surely rolling in his grave when this load came out. It's shameful, and a waste of time, not to mention a waste of a great book. Once again, Hollywood fails.

[–] greg-goremykin 9 years ago

If Ebert had something against Bukowski then why would he give Barfly 4 stars out of 4 and declare it one of the best films of 1987? It's this movie that he didn't like, and I agree with him, it sucked.

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/barfly-1987

[–] Takeshi-K 8 years ago

A lot can happen in 20 years. Maybe Ebert tried to nail his wife or something.

[–] jtf1986 9 years ago

The review was written by Jim Emerson, not Ebert.

[–] donluigi87 8 years ago

I know I looked for Ebert's review of the film and only found one written by Jim Emerson. Their criticizing Ebert for a review he never even wrote.