Very disappointing...

Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

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.

I have waited a long time to see this movie. IFC finally ran it one night. I thought it would be something like "Barfly" from Barbet Schroeder. Wrong. This film doesn't recreate that underworld of chintzy, dirty, smoke filled, character filled bars you associate with his stories. It also fails to capture that Bukowski attitude that Mickey Rourke did so well in the above mentioned film. That natural smart-ass attitude. Fans of Charles Bukowski will enjoy seeing scenes from his books on screen but those unfamiliar with his books could get the wrong impression about his works. This film looks like just another 'Movie Of The Week" about a drunk and his relationships. If you want to get a better idea about Charles Bukowski's world watch "Barfly".

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.

I wasted 90 minutes for the movie already, so i'll keep it short: the movie has NO story in it. It's about the life of a man losing one job after another. I'm still wondering how you can spend money to make a movie, after getting a script like that! There are so many scenes that i felt like they had to do, just to get enough material together to stretch the movie to 90 minutes. Scenes where they just sit there and no say a word and nothing at all happens. I guess i have seen worse, but it's definitely one of the most boring movies ever! The only reason for the second star is that Matt Dillon still did a good job. Even though there was not much to act.