Alfie (2004) Reviews

• Sort of a pointless exercise.

  eht5y2005-07-06

  The original 'Alfie,' released in 1966, was considered a revelation for its frank and somewhat dark portrait of the life of a cockney rake, and can now be seen as somewhat prophetic, as it predated (and in some ways helped to introduce) the era of 'swinging London' and the sexual revolution. The 2004 'Alfie' seems to exist for no other purpose than to dress Jude Law up in a hip wardrobe and allow him to wink, smirk, and sigh endlessly at the camera as he sleeps his way through a series of likable women he doesn't deserve. There isn't much of a narrative structure here, and while Law is an engaging screen presence, Alfie is a totally unsympathetic lout who deserves his eventual comeuppance. It's too bad that Bill Naughton wasn't able to update his original story more effectively, because the film is gorgeous to look at. Despite a few unnecessary bits of cleverness (billboards with odd, art-nouveau messages like 'desire' and 'wish', a lot of mod-ish split screen sequences with still photography, etc.), the cinematography is superb, Law looks dashing in his GQ hipster wardrobe, and the ladies--Susan Sarandon, Jane Krakowski, Nia Long, Marisa Tomei, and newcomer Sienna Miller (whom Law apparently dumped his wife for during filming)--are ravishing. The soundtrack is also superb, made up mostly of new tunes by Mick Jagger and Dave Stewart (of Eurythmics fame). The biggest problem here is that times have changed since the original Alfie: sexual and gender politics don't allow for a protagonist who bed-hops and deceives women with impunity to be cast as heroic or even remotely sympathetic. In the end, the film seems hollow, like a nearly two-hour long visual fashion spread (interestingly, 'Vanity Fair' editor Graydon Carter has a cameo in the film). Beautiful to look at, but ultimately it's just pretty trash.

  More

• Jude must be taking the Michael...

  warnerclassic2004-11-12

  Not a lot of people know this, but Terence Stamp first played the role of Alfie on stage over thirty years ago. He was then offered the film role, but turned it down. His flatmate, a struggling up and coming actor, tried to convince him to take the part, but Terence was not budging. And so his flatmate took the role. His name, was Michael Caine, and that film, Alfie, spring boarded the young actor to be the most famous cockney in the world. Of all Caine's films this ranks alongside Get Carter and The Italian Job as his best, and so why re-make it I hear you cry! Hollywood had a go at remaking The Italian Job and Get Carter but only came out with turkeys so big you couldn't fit them in your oven. But instead of remaking a Michael Caine film that wasn't good (THE SWARM, BLAME IT ON RIO!) Caine's golden classic Alfie has had the makeover, with pretty boy Jude Law bought in to ask what it's all about. Well for those who don't know what it's all about, Alfie's world is women, pulling them and dumping them. Sounds a little cold, but that is Alfie, a bird puller extraordinaire who lives for the conquests, but soon bores of them whenever commitment rears it's ugly head. Of course Alfie has to be bought down a peg or two, and this happens as a result of another conquest, which has further reaching consequences than Alfie can realize. But should Alfie have been dusted down for the 2004 audience? Well the answer is no. But why? Well, to analyse this we have to go back to the beginning and what Alfie was in Caine's day. Alfie was a man about town stuck in the poor end of London, sleeping his way through a never ending supply of 'birds' while fighting his working class shackles. Back then women were not the powerful sex they are today, at least not on the cinema screen, and were happy to get Alfie's dinner and scrub his floors. Now lets look at Jude Laws Alfie, living in present day New York, and sleeping with a seemingly never ending amount of stunners, who all seem to be getting as much out of him as he gets out of them. And so what's he got to fight against? Not his surroundings (he's in glamorous Manhattan) and his job isn't that bad (still a driver, but look at the perks), and he even likes the kid of one of his girlfriends. And so he's a nice guy, and there is problem 1, bang goes Alfie's cold side. And so what we are left with is a man who lives in New York and finds it hard to commit. Hardly a rare phenomenon. Problem number 2 is the original Alfie movie's use of the shock factor. Denholm Elliott turning up to do a back street abortion was enough to make some walk out the cinema in 1966. In this film the subject of abortion, although delicately handled, has lost it's cinematic impact, which is no doubt due to the three decades that has passed between films. And so we come to problem number 3, the films flaw being that the Alfie of today is simply not as relevant to the Alfie of yesterday. Today we have 'Sex and the City', empowered women, whom one can't help but feel would eat Alfie up alive. Indeed, the film would be more realistic if the lead was a female, although that would send traditionalists (like myself) running up the nearest tree. The makers of this re-make obviously think that illnesses has to be stepped up, and so while Caine's Alfie was given shadows on his lung to make him give pause, Law's Alfie gets a lump on his…erm…'Big Ben' (I hope to God that's not the new word for it) But what about performances? Well, Law as Alfie is fine, giving emotion where its needed, although his performance does not bounce along like Caines did. When Caine spoke to the camera, immediately breaking the fourth wall and bonding with the audience, it was the height of cool, when Law does the same it feels cheesy, and like cheese, it soon starts to grate. Susan Sarandon, as the sexy older woman, certainly fulfils her characters description, while Sienna Miller gives a promising portrayal as a young women who looks like a young Marianne Faithful (circa 1965) minus her Rolling Stone. And so the blame for the films failure cannot be left at its actors doors, nor its director. The film is simply a victim of its time. Alfie belongs in the sixties, when the world (or London at least) was swinging. Right now the only thing swinging is the cinema doors, and that's because I've just left.

  More

• ALFIE IS AWFUL!

  gmdavila2004-11-08

  This was one of the worst movies that I have been subjected to in a long time. It didn't quite know if it was: A) a chick flick because of Jude Law consuming the screen every single moment B) a manly flick because of all the hot women running around half naked. C) Or just a hodge podge of doomed relationships/one night stands. The movie didn't quite know what it was and left us in the same perturbed state as its main character. Jude was adorable, the NYC life was fun to watch, but overall the movie lacked substance. And not to mention the lack of social awareness when it came to the women in the film. Stay away... unless of course you have an undying love for Jude Law. But after sitting through this your love will wither away!

  More

• Less Than Halfie

  arichmondfwc2005-03-10

  In the words of Sean Penn "Jude Law is one of the best actors we got" I agree, so what the hell is he doing? The film is so ill conceived that I'm not even going to talk about it, but I'm going to talk about Jude Law because I love him. I'm also considerably older than him and I love movies and great actors and on the screen, great actors can also be great stars and when great stars are also great actors then you have Spencer Tracy, Montgomery Clift, Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, Johnny Depp, Daniel Day Lewis even Sean Penn and a few others. Jude Law had, from day one (a few days ago) all the elements that made the above mentioned actors what they were, what they are, what they always will be. I'm not about blame the failure of this film on Jude Law, no, of course not but "Alfie" comes out on a year when we've had several Jude Law movies all of them bearing Jude Law's name, but just the name. Not a glimpse of the Law of Mr Ripley or Wilde not even Gattaca. In "Closer" he is very good but he couldn't afford not to be. Great words and Mike Nichols. No, I want to see Jude Law in dangerous projects with unpredictable, brilliant, lyrical, powerful directors. I want to see him in all his glorious promise. Is that too much to ask?

  More

• OutLaw

  don_agu2005-01-07

  I saw Jude Law for the first time on Broadway on an adaptation of a Jean Cocteau play. He was a stunner. You could see his future even from where I was sitting, one of the cheapest sits at the back of the theatre. Then "Gattaca" a poor film that Jude Law's presence alone awarded some sort of cult status. Other films with the likes of Jeanne Moreau, David Cronnenberg, Jenifer Jason Leigh. All good stuff, all seem to confirm my original impression. Then, "Wilde" and "The Talented Mr. Ripley" and I thought -- Amazing, we haven't had an actor like this, ever. Forget about his beauty, if you can, and concentrate in his mind boggling range. In Mr. Ripley the film never recovers from his death and in "Wilde" you understand, you actually understand Oscar Wilde, losing absolutely everything for him. He introduced the only entertaining moments in "Artificial Intelligence" and then, something happened, too many films and not too much judgement. In "Cold Mountain" he didn't have the epic scope that, in my modest opinion, the character required. In "Road to Perdition" he indulges in a shallow show off performance overshadowed by a theatrical costume and rotten teeth. But "Alfie" is, quite simply, unforgivable. Not a moment of truth, not a moment of charm, not a moment of beauty. The three elements that brought Jude Law up this moment. I left the theatre more than disappointed, I left angry because I recognised the symptoms of a potentially, mythological career, in real danger. I hope Jude Law sees the light, unless he is satisfied with the Troy Donohue award. If that's the case, well, he already got it. "Alfie" got it for him.

  More