Save your money for something good and enjoyable

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

The late Charles Bukowski is a highly regarded and influential writer in America . I know this because I once had a friend ( Hope you read this Ange and apologies in advance ) who was a massive fan and if it wasn't for her I'd never heard of the guy who is totally unknown in Britain and if it wasn't for this film adaptation of his semi autobiographical novel BARFLY he'd be even more obscure , but even then this film is half forgotten and I was totally convinced that it was a star vehicle for Jack Nicholson and Meryll Streep until I saw it again today and I'm not surprised it's somewhat forgotten . Some people have criticised it's lost something from page to screen . Well I think that's happens to drunks . We've all heard of the vodka diet - " I lost four days in a week " One can perhaps see the appeal of the black comedy elements as Henry Chinaski and Wanda Wilcox as they drink themselves in to nightly oblivion . There is of course strong autobiographical elements to the story with Chinaski being Charles Bukowski in everything but name and the character arc of Chinaski mirroring that of Bukowski . Chinaski is an urban anti-hero but if there's a problem with anti-heroes they've a peculiar idiosyncratic character quirks that makes them unlikable to a degree . The degree of unlikability to Chinaski is a bit too extreme . He's not a courageous quixotic existentialist figure fighting against a world of indifference but one who is happy to live life through alcoholic soma . As someone who grew up in a drinking culture in the West of Scotland surrounded by drunks I can state without fear of contradiction that drunks are almost universally worthless degenerates amongst the lowest examples of humanity . Disagree ? If someone's ambition extends no further then their next drink then how is that different from an insect whose whole DNA instructs it to have no more ambition to nibble the nearest leaf ? No difference at all from an intellectual point of view . Let's not also forget that in Victorian Britain all drugs were legal and yet literature chronicles that the worst drug of the masses was alcohol . More addictive than heroin , more mind bending than magic mushrooms alcohol along with religion are the worst thing the human species has invented

Love blossoms in the gutter when a shabby skid row derelict meets an alcoholic floozy in the bars of outer LA, but don't be dismayed by all the rampant sleaze: despite the vivid atmosphere of cheap booze and wasted lives this unique and unusual film represents a minor triumph of comic nonconformity. The script was written by low-life poet Charles Bukowski and is filled with all his favorite things: winos, hookers, losers, and a "wet rat in the rain", played to perfection by Mickey Roarke, who with his flabby posture and smooth beatnik whisper gives the character more humor and humanity than Bukowski may have intended. Give Roarke credit for choosing to appear in such an unflattering role, but this is no ordinary bum. He's a philosopher drunkard who listens to Mozart and Mahler when he isn't picking a fight or puking in an alley after one drink too many, a man whose total freedom from responsibility gives him the power to be completely spontaneous. Faye Dunaway isn't allowed the same depth of character, but together they help make this one of the few films for which the word skuzzy can aptly be used as a compliment.

Regardless the fact that Mickey Rourke is a great actor in my opinion and appreciate his acting in many movies, he was just not the right person to be in this movie.. If you know nothing about the writer and the lead character of the movie, Charles Bukowski you may like the performance of the actor and praise him. There is a scene in the movie where Charles Bukowski himself sits in the bar drinking his beer and smoking his cigarette staring at his silhouette.. In that scene it is obvious that the movie needed someone more heavy and charismatic at least as much as that man sitting in the bar... Actors should be the exaggerated forms of real people. So it is not a surprise of Charles Bukowski's condemnation of Mickey Rourke's portrayal of him (Chinaski) in the movie.

Somehow this film stuck in the back of my head as something really good I had seen in the 80's and when I had the chance to see it again I jumped at the chance. Oh dear. I never made the connection between "Barfly" and Charles Bukowski's writings, which I read 10 years later, and there's a good reason why. This is awful and untrue to the writing. Mickey Rourke seems to have based his acting on cartoon characters. Foghorn Leghorn for the physical acting and Sylvester the cat with a touch of WC Fields for speaking. He could do no wrong at the time, who was going to tell him otherwise? Set in a different time period from the writings it misses a chance to draw comparisons between those lost to society post-Great depression and their hugely similar post-Reagan counterparts. Bukowski had "Don't try" written on his gravestone, a phrase from one of his poems. Obviously everyone involved in this film read that poem. Watch "Factotum".