I found the movie somewhat sad, but not for the actual story or events depicted in it. Rather, because it is full of bits and pieces of a time, place and culture which I remember well and is now gone forever.

I found this too starry for a Bukowski adaptation. I mean, here you have Chinaski, a really ugly but tough guy, and who plays it? Mickey Rourke, the baby-face No.1 of the time! And the glamorous Dunaway? Was she really appropriate for Chinaski's broken, older love? I did enjoy the movie partly and it's difficult not to recommend it. (After all, it's Bukowski.) I would have enjoyed it more if I hadn't read any Bukowski. But what's the point in that? - Note: Try the movie Factotum after this.

The script was written by Charles Bukowski. If you consider this, Rourke is another alter ego of him, like all those drunk and gross characters he created in so many poetries. Rourke acts great, and plays the role of the drunken genius convincing. If you like Bukowski give it a try.

The world and language of Bukowski translated to the screen, and through this medium it seems so much more sadder and less exciting than it was on page (at least for the first third). Rourke translates Henry Chinaski unsuccessfully (he's too boastful and bashful) but it's still a good performance of a down-and-out drunk that prefers to stay that way: no wonder women fight over him.

Everything I dislike about Bukowski with very little of what I do like. It's like fan fiction about himself - supercool writing genius who fucks everyone and wins fights. It's all his facade with none of those beautiful cracks (this is a problem with his novels as well). There's no poetry to it, and worse, there's very little honesty. Like, the fighting neighbor bit was clearly directed by someone who's never heard a bad fight through thin walls. It sounds like The Honeymooners.

Rourke like never seen before of after. He was also great in The Wrestler, it's like he was made to act worn out he-men. The main difference is that Bukow.. ah, Chinaski character finds meaning and purpose in self-destruction and meaninglessness of life. And who is to say that this philosophy is wrong. Overall, this movie is a bit too light to deliver heavy messages, but you really might want to see Rourke's acting.

Bukowski deserves better than this

Laborer, no experience. Heyyy, that's me.

Okay Movie

A terrific little film that features the best performance Mickey Rourke has ever given. It drags you into its world and makes you care about the characters.

Sarcastic and genius.

I really liked this.

Hank's social capital allowed him to float above some serious shit in the eighties. But to put this stewbum-as-Rocky schlock-dumpster flick across as serious Film was just too much for me. Read his books, that's all he really wanted you to do in the first place.

great acting

Good job by Rourke, an unlikable actor well cast in an unlikable role, and making an effort on top of it. Dunaway, however, is so very drab and untalented, she shouldn't even portray unpleasant women. Schroeder's Henry Chinaski is more cynicism and less lyricism than the Chinaski in Bent Hamer's Factotum (2006), and Barfly is more uneasy to watch, but definitely better (though Factotum's good too).

Do all stewbums win this many fights against larger opponents and get girlfriends who look like Faye Dunaway?

i probably like this way too much

Deliciously cynical.

Mickey Rourke played phenomenally. I did not know him from comedy side. Impossible distance

This movie rides on the strength of its two leads. Rourke's embodiment of this particular character is total. A tumultuous, but somewhat typical episode of these people's crazed, alcohol-fueled lives.

Barfly: 7 // 10 // 8 // 6 // 7 // 7 // 7