Overrated

A Brilliant Conflict

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

This would have been a lot better if the character was more likable and was actually a legit worker, as the unusual title word implies.I can't respect someone who takes jobs then burns his employers by skipping out or breaking property. I understand periodic laziness and being against "the system," but if you take a job, at least do it well and earn your money! You can quit with a bit of dignity by giving notice. This guy was Johnny Paycheck on autopilot.I also can't relate to people who sit around drinking and smoking all the time. It seems suicidal to risk one's health and I can't reconcile that with a supposedly inspired writer. The writer aspect was never emphasized enough and we didn't get inside his mind, except for profound-sounding quotes spoken at random with weak context. The book does a better job with mental imagery but I think Bukowski's shtick of being "direct" falls short on depth.I started to read the book, got burned out on its jadedness, then watched the movie and found it even worse. A number of the raunchier book segments were deleted from the film.At least this was easier to watch than the exceedingly grimy "Barfly" (1987) with an even more unlikable character.

First off, let me tell you...this movie is funny. It is a dark comedy, so the humor was expected to be witty, and it delivered. Matt Dillon plays this role superbly - with some great one liners I might add. I was never a fan of his until this movie. The role is perfect for him.Had never heard of Bent Hamer until this movie, but I like his style of directing and he is very good at timing.Character development was OK, however I would have liked to have seen a bit more plot. That area made this film a tad forgettable.I would definitely recommend this movie to anyone who has a dry, witty sense of humor, it made me laugh out loud a few times, which I rarely do by myself at home. :)

this is a pathetic movie with bore-u-to-death storyline. wasting the whole length of the playing time to portray a writer-wannabe self-righteous bum and loser. one of the worst movies ever made into production. there's absolutely nothing in it except self-indulgent binge drinking, sex, horse-race gambling and wandering around in bars, beds and temporary jobs in factories. most of the characters showed in this film was just like the main character, without any energy and interest in life, absolutely aimless like lost souls or walking dead. a guy who periodically holding a pen in his hand, chain-smoking and drinking would finally got his muse in writing? this is one of the worst movies, cuz it ain't worth making into a film, completely wasting time and money to tell a good-for-nothing guy's soul-less daily passage. one of the screenplay writers was the original writer who wrote this totally pointless nothing-in-it story, then some brainless guys in the movie industries picked up the garbage and made it into a movie with nothing in it. it's not Albert Camus' existentialism nor the nihilism but a shallow low-life do-nothing pinhead writing a void diary of his crappy miserable and tried so hard to look like James Joyce's 'The Dubliner'. there's no philosophy or life reckoning thoughts in it. a so-called short novel/movie with no oxygen and nutrition. don't try to fool me with high scored reviews to pretend that you could see something out of nothing. this is the exact sample of 'the new dress of the emperor', cuz it's naked nothingness.

It's possible that people who enjoyed this movie, did so because they had previous knowledge of the writer this movie is loosely based upon, Charles Bukowski. I have never heard of this author going into the movie, and I'm not sure it would have mattered that this fictional story is based upon what life as Charles Bukowski is romanticized to be. The fact that I like Matt Dillon in most of his films, didn't make me like his character Henry any better.Parts of the film include voice over of Henry speaking. In most films they use this as a narration tool to let us know things the movie otherwise can't reveal in the scenes. In "Factotum" I am afraid the dialogue was the text in the written submissions Henry was making to a publisher. I hope I am wrong. It was mind-numbing drivel, like a diary of how one behaves like a loser, but with no skills in telling it even in an entertaining fashion. Henry's voice is just a simple narrator to his mundane life of getting fired and getting drunk, it suggests nothing poetic or redeeming at all.I'm not opposed to enjoying movies which show the alcoholic spiraling out of control, even if it has a totally unsatisfying ending. I really enjoyed "Leaving Las Vegas" with Nicolas Cage and Elisabeth Shue as Ben and Sera. Here a guy commits suicide by drinking himself to death, but he convinces you to like him in spite of his terrible character flaws and bad behavior. "Factotum" just can not accomplish this for me.