Factotum

2006 "What matters most is how well you walk through the fire"
6.6| 1h34m| R| en
Details

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.

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

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

Trailers & Clips

Reviews

Incannerax What a waste of my time!!!
Motompa Go in cold, and you're likely to emerge with your blood boiling. This has to be seen to be believed.
Catangro After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.
Sammy-Jo Cervantes There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.
EliLaCrosse Bukowski novels are intrinsically filmic, with their hammy, memorable, and very real characters, plots, and dialogue. Factotum is a perfect example, but this film is so poorly conceived and executed the source material is really drained of all the life and qualities that tee up wonderful films for would-be directors.Simply put, the transplanting of the story to the upper midwest is beyond disastrous. The grungy and colorful bit players of the Bukowski novel appear as wooden, faceless, lifeless props in this film--which is perhaps more in keeping with the northern aesthetic than the L.A. vibe. But as a result, killer scenes from the novel that should be guaranteed winners on film fall absolutely flat. The sheer letdown was too much to get over and enjoy this film on any level. I know, it's beyond common with novels on film--the fans of the novel are never happy. But it's not as though this film works on its own merits, either. It would never have been pitched, financed, or even seen by a single living soul were it not for the hardcore fans of the novel. Sean Penn was wise to take a pass, despite his friendship with Bukowski.On that note, there were pretty good performances by the leads, but they, as the source material, are wasted on this absolute dud of a film.
brucetwo This is not the Bukowski novel of the same title. Some of the incidents are from that book, others are from Buk's other stories. But much of the point of Bukowski's writing seems to have been missed. None of his intelligence, skepticism, humor and the grim determination to survive and "get through" life. This film's Chinaski just seems to be only a guy who likes to drink and get into fights (which is part of Bukowski's writing, but only the most superficial). Kind of reminds me of the "dumbed down" Clint Eastwood movie "Every Which Way But Loose" where he is driving around in a truck with a monkey or orangutan or something. Interesting that some of the scenes from another Bukowski-inspired film--"Barfly"--is also in this movie. This film seems to have been made after Bukowski died, so he didn't have any input into it. For Bukowski's own perspective on the whole movie-making process and what it does to his work, see his novel "Hollywood." It's worth reading.By the way, Bukowski does have another link to the movie business--he used to be a drinking buddy of Leonard DiCaprio's Dad. Any time spent reading Bukowski's actual writings--prose or poetry--is time well spent.--B2
kdill-3 Many reviewers say they didn't "get" the movie or that it wasn't about anything. I felt the same way until I realized maybe that's the point. This film addresses the question, What is success? Is success only what our society defines success as? Or can success really be something else altogether? Something of our own making.If I had known it was about Charles Bukowski when I was watching it, I might have appreciated it a little more. I'm a fan of his blunt way of writing. Bukowski was primarily a poet and he had a terrible childhood, which obviously affected his entire life and worldview.Definitely not a film for the suicidal or depressed or alcoholic. By the end I needed a stiff drink and a bottle of sleeping pills.
board-5 I'm not sure what the writer Bukowski and Brent Hamer want to say with the last lines,but the nihilistic life concept,and the lot of last sentences,as a last lines of the film just not impressed me.When the character played by Matt Dillon talking with he's father,it's visible which things took humans to sin.The whole film is to lame,and few to understand what Bukowsky wants to tell us about the freedom of homeless life.And I'm also not impressed by the lot of boring minutes,with sexual and just seems like philosophical content.My opinion is:AVOID IF YOU CAN,OR WAIT THIS FILM ON TELEVISIONE,but don't waist your time on this film cause it's far from deep,and far from emotionally decent,at quality.