To me, this movie is perfection.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Matt Dillon is a great actor and he proves it in this movie. He plays an alcoholic writer who refuses to give up his dream, showing a strength of character and an iron-will that belies his drinking and marginal existence. His performance carries the movie and keep sit interesting. Mr. Dillon makes the character, and through the character the story, interesting. He is traveling through life, not asking for much, except to be able to write, which is a lonely existence. Nobody understands him; the women in his life, including his mother, most of all. No one perceives his brilliance and it's driving him to drink, and occasionally to act out. He crashes, he boozes, he mopes, but he writes. He takes only the most marginal, menial jobs, because he has a higher calling, which nobody knows about except him, and if he told anybody else, they wouldn't understand anyway.

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.

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 swear, I felt like taking a nice swig of some liquor, after watching it. This movie, is character driven, and Matt Dillon plays Henry Chinaski, a quite amusing character that calls himself a writer and goes on about life hitting the bottle, and finding new jobs and going through the motions with total disregard of it, the movie doesn't have an overall theme though, is just a more casual movie, with a very entertaining in a dark way character. The constant bar scenes, the constant drinking, that dark lull of it, has an odd and quite dark attraction to it. Some will say, that Chinaski slow crawl to degeneration will make someone be turn off to drinking. But quite the opposite, at least for me.This movie is not recommended for everyone, but if you stick around long enough, it could be a nice surprise though.