Mihai Toma
Alfie is a playboy, a lonely soul, enjoying life. Thanks to his good appearance, he meets women, has fun with them and then very fast, dumps them. He has nothing to worry about, not even about his home in which he hardly sleeps. All seems to be going well but he's about to find out that a person's life isn't really that easy. Along the way, he makes a lot of mistakes which at the moment aren't acknowledged, but as time goes by, they collapse on him, one by one, making him change his mentality. The question is, will Alfie be able to do something before it's too late?I really liked the whole idea of this movie and especially how it's presented by the main character himself throughout the whole movie. Seeing how a person's life can take such a dramatic turn is quite staggering to be honest, but nevertheless, it's reality. I also liked the way the movie kept me focused all the time, without any "dead" or boring moments but unfortunately I was expecting more from the finale. Maybe it's just me that wanted some sort of happy ending which frankly wasn't there but overall, it's a great movie.
ironhorse_iv
Written, directed and produced by Charles Shyer, and based on the 1966 British film of the same name which in return is adapted from a novel and play of the same name by Bill Naughton, this American remake tells the story of a single womanizing New York Limo Driver, named Alfie Elkins (Jude Law) whom is trying to change his Hedonism lifestyle, before its starts hurting the people, around him. Without spoiling the movie, too much, I have to say, this is one remake that shouldn't existed. After all, the original movie was made at a time, where a carefree existence was somewhat of a new thing & then-taboo subject matter. So, it makes sense for Michael Caine's Alfie to be, somewhat of an unlikeable womanizer. He cheats on numerous women, and despite his confidence towards women, he treats them with disrespect and refers to them as "it", using them for sex and for domestic purposes. However, with Jude Law's version, he far too likable and charming than the 1966's version. He's too proper. He wasn't as much as a jerk and detached, as the original character is supposed to be. In many ways, this version of Alfie, seem less of a sexual predator than Michael Caine and more like a normal human being. So, for the most part, it made for a more enjoyable watch, than the original movie. However, it's not as memorable, as the first movie, as 1966's 'Alfie' was an edgy produce of the time. In 2004, it is far more common for men and women to sleep around, and also have a child outside the traditional rules; but in 1966, that was not common. Even the thoughts of abortion, is a no-no. I think that's the problem with this movie. It's not shocking anymore! Plus, there is barely any new stakes to modernize the dated source material. Honestly, the movie would had work better, if Alfie was more ass. Then, his fail redemption story would felt more tragic than it was. I didn't feel invested as I should. It wasn't engaging to me. It's a lot of first world Casanova conflicts that most people can't relate to. I would rather see him, deal with more modern day normal sexual problems, like STDs, complex sexual preferences, and time-management. Plus, as a comedy. This movie isn't that funny. Even the comical erectile dysfunction joke seem a bit limp. Also, the jokes are repetitive as hell. It doesn't have that, Woody Allen unique style, 'break the fourth wall' charm. It could had been a little clever in the way, it deliver that. Yet, it still has some cool moments in the beginning of the film, but for the most part, it wasn't anything new, toward the end. The 'break the fourth wall' pacing became to drag on, a little too much. Despite that, the supporting casting is well done. Marisa Tomei as Julie was amazing. You really hope for them to get together, even in the end. Susan Sarandon is a perfect fit for the rich MILF role that Shelley Winters used to bring, in the original movie. It also nice to see, some diversity, with African-American actors & actresses, playing Alfie's best friend, Marlon (Omar Epps) and love-interest, Lonette (Nia Long). However, I didn't like the Asian roles like Wing (Gedde Watanabe) in this film. I found them to be a bit stereotypical, and somewhat offensive racist. If there were performance from the supporting cast, I didn't like; it would be, with Jude Law's then, real-life girlfriend, Sienna Miller as Nikki. I found her character to be minor with barely anything to show, besides lot of scenes of nudity. I know, her character was written that way so he miss Julie more, but it was highly disappointing. The whole montage sequence, kinda under-minded what she could had shown. Despite that, the movie is beautifully shot. Lots of bright colors to lighten the dark mood of the film. The music score composed by rock-star Mick Jagger, Dave Stewart and John Powell wasn't that bad, either. For the song "Old Habits Die Hard" Mick Jagger and David A. Stewart won the BFCA Award, the Golden Globe, a Sierra Award and the World Soundtrack. Yet it's nothing worth getting exciting about. It sounds like generic run of the mill, early 2000s rock music at the time. Nothing memorable. Further songs by Wyclef Jean and The Isley Brothers were the same. Overall: Hey Jude! You're a good actor, but this remake wasn't that good. At least, it is way better than 1975's sequel to the original movie, 'Alfie Darling' with Alan Price replacing Michael Caine. That movie was horrible. In the end, 2004's 'Alfie' was a box office bomb, not because it was bad. It was because of its mediocre. I really can't recommended watching it. It was a pointless watch.
rzajac
I haven't seen the original, so if you're looking for an historic perspective, look elsewhere.What can I say?: I really like Jude Law. I like his good stage sense; he exudes entertainment value, and (as long as he's well-directed) this makes him worth watching.Nice to see him get a lead role; another commenter complained about his asides to the audience--not as organic as Caine's--but I thought they were well-directed, and I feel Law takes direction very well.Everything is set up beautifully. It's an operatic theme, grand in its simplicity: A man is a loser mix of natural-born girlslayer, while being tragically limited by fundamentally loveless views of relationship; really, just Tchaikovsky's Eugene Onegin without the songs. Just paint the picture, paint it clearly and well, don't forget to imbue it with humanity (read: humor), thereby making it all that much more tragic. Oh: And don't resolve it. Leave it for us to resolve within ourselves. They could have pulled their punches with a facile resolution; as feelgood as it would be lacking in genuine redemptive power.Interesting question: No doubt some will more or less reflexively reject a remake; some right out of the gate, others after watching it with a suspicious, jaundiced eye. But the important thing is that grand, operatic theme I allude to in the previous paragraph. Do they or do they not deliver those specific goods?: A picture of an incomplete man.I say they do. And, insofar as they do, this is a picture with a big vision.In other words, check it out.
