Alfie (2004) User Reviews

The Issue Of Remakes

[boblipton · 6/10 · 13 November 2021]

Jude Law takes the title role in this remake of the 1966 flick that was the follow-up hit that confirmed Michael Caine as a star. He's been an enduring one, still turning them out, as British actors do, whenever he's asked. 130 movies, with three n various stages of production. Good on him.

But we're talking about the 2004 production, and Jude Law here. Remakes of classics always start with a disadvantage. Just as Caine undoubtedly had to contend with comparisons to Terence Stamp's performance in the original stage production (Stamp turned down the movie, and helped talk Caine into it, impelled, no doubt, by a hope that a good paycheck would get Caine out of his apartment and into his own flat). So lets get to it: Law plays a playboy, not uncaring, but happy with his life of plenty of women and no attachments, who comes to realize that's not what he wants. Caine played the same facade and base.... and then layered them with the coldness he plays so well. Law thinks he has it all; Caine brought an amount of misogynistic disdain into the mix. That might not play in the 21st century, but it's a more nuanced and interesting performance, watching Alfie's change from a cheap villain into his own victim.

Still, this is a handsome production, reset in New York City for no particular reason, and offering a good time. It's not a classic, but it is a good film.

Alfie is quite the ladies' man. However, this movie is no smooth operator. This movie was kinda rough. It wasn't that good. It was meh.

[ironhorse_iv · 5/10 · 29 August 2016]

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.

Lets do the time warp now!

[Philby-3 · 5/10 · 2 December 2007]

Remakes are always a problem for the critic, whether or not he or she has seen the original. Here we have an American remake in 2004 of a British film made by Lewis Gilbert in 1966, itself an adaptation of a stage play by Bill McNaughton from the early 60s. The creative process is not easy to track in these circumstances, even though the DVD I saw has two sets of audio-commentary by the director, Charles Shyer, and others.

In this version Alfie is still the chirpy cockney Lothario, but operating as a chauffeur in lower Manhattan rather than London. His women are characters derived from the 1966 film, but glamorised somewhat. Alfie's philosophy, delivered face to camera, as in the first film, is the same – love 'em and leave 'em.

As Alfie, Jude Law channels Michael Caine in the 1966 film but puts his own stamp on the role. Jude is exactly right for the part and makes Alfie both repellent and sympathetic. We are left hoping he will mend his ways but thinking there's not much chance of that. For Alfie, there is no answer to the question posed in the song "What's it all about?" The music, written and performed by another hardy survivor of swinging London in the 60s, Mick Jagger (and others) is a pleasant feature, and Alfie's girls are undeniably attractive. (During filming Jude Law and Sienna Miller became an item – that's method acting for you.) Charles Shyer tells us in the audio-commentary that he set out to be stylish and there's considerable use of split-screen technique and some fancy cutting. Using Manchester, Liverpool and London as Manhattan as well as Manhattan itself for location shooting must have caused some production problems, though most of them seemed to have been overcome in post-production.

This 2004 version did decent business in the UK but bombed in the US. Why? The hero is a Brit, but then so is James Bond. The women are all accomplished actresses and Susan Sarandon delivers a standout performance. There is plenty of relatively tasteful humour but no happy ending, just "life goes on". The pace is fast enough and Shyer slaps on plenty of "style", but what we are seeing is the 1966 film lite. A period piece set in the wrong period. Elaine Pope, who co-wrote the screenplay with Shyer, was well aware that women are now less inclined to be doormats for feckless men like Alfie, and adjusted the female parts accordingly, but ultimately we have a movie 40 years out of its time.

Jude must be taking the Michael...

[warnerclassic · 12 November 2004]

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.

Not as bad as feared...

[scottlad79 · 6/10 · 15 November 2004]

The great thing about being dragged to see films that you don't really want to see, is that when they turn out to be OK then you end up leaving the theatre feeling semi satisfied. And that is exactly what this remake of the 60's Michael Caine film is, OK. Caine purists have moaned that the film itself doesn't bear up well against the original, that it isn't as gritty or in some ways, seedy as its predecessor and that anything with Law in it is just style over substance. What we actually get is a poorly directed, shoddily edited, mildly entertaining popcorn flick, which IS style over substance.

Law gives a decent and somewhat infectious performance as lovable, mockney Alfie, further staking his claim towards the best do hair in the world award. There is also decent support from Omar Epps as Alfie's cheated on best mate Marlon and Susan Sarandon looking not a day over 40.

The main problem I found with the film was the blatant over directing and editing of certain scenes, especially those that involved emotion. The scene where Law is dumped by his girlfriend (Marisa Tomei) is a prime example, instead of getting what could have been a moving insight of the mind of our protagonist, we get a scene which is about 5 or 6 takes botched together, which drains any feeling there might have been altogether. Did Shyer have trouble getting actors to act? Should he stick to Steve Martin wedding films?

All in all this is 21st century, times have changed since 1966, women are no longer men's toys like they were back then, peoples attitudes to sex, abortion, and social comment are all different compared with 40 years ago and this is reflected in here.

Alfie isn't bad, it is just OK, and if you are forced into it, then probably all the better for enjoyment purposes. 6/10

As remakes go - I've seen worse

[mjw2305 · 7/10 · 23 December 2006]

Jude Law undoubtedly captures the character of Alfie, the carefree playboy womaniser. Although not as good as the original, this remake is pretty good.

Packed with sexy women, Alfie takes us on a journey through his life of fun, excitement, disappointment and hurt and Jude Law's performance is truly top-notch, so much so you can't help but love his character, in-spite of his shallow morales.

With a limited appeal, Alfie certainly targets a specific audience, all of whom probably need to be Jude Law fans to begin with.

Alfie is a film that you could easily hate, but I was compelled from the opening scene to the end, and I found beneath all the cold hearted antics a heart warming story and character that was good fun to watch.

7/10

Very good

[yourpreaty · 7/10 · 12 August 2020]

I enjoyed it a lot. But wish there was some kind of ending. The movie left us hanging. Wishing for more, there could have been the 2 part or something like that. Every girl that is fallen in love and with pink glasses should watch this and see how men really are. It shows the world view how the karma works sometimes. And that what's superficial isn't always a thing we should focus on but look deeper and do good while we are still on this earth. Reflect on our actions and I wish you all learned something from this movie as much as I did.

Sort of a pointless exercise.

[eht5y · 4/10 · 6 July 2005]

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.

An interesting idea

[MihaiSorinToma · 9/10 · 20 October 2017]

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.

Decent little film had a hard time finding an audience.

[TOMASBBloodhound · 7/10 · 17 April 2005]

While moviegoers here in the US lined up to see a very mediocre horror film called "Saw" last fall, this film starring Jude Law went almost unnoticed. I find that unfortunate since it is a well-acted character study of a truly engaging individual. The film lost one hell of a lot of money.

Alfie is a limo driver in NYC who uses his charm to make out like a bandit with various women whenever he gets the chance. Jude Law has this character down perfectly. He's just too damn charming for his own good. Most of us guys wouldn't stand a chance against him. I never saw the original, so I'm not sure how Michael Caine did with his performance, but Law is quite good in this version. Despite his charm, Alfie has a very strong fear of any type of commitment. Even when he really likes a woman, he always backs out of the relationship when he senses things are getting too close.

The film has an appealing cast, and that is one of its strongest assets. Not only does Law shine, but so do most of the female characters he charms. There are some problems, however. The film contains two subplots that are played way up, then dropped abruptly. In one, Alfie impregnates his best friend's woman during a brief separation of their relationship. Alfie is under the impression that the woman has the child aborted, but we later find that not to be the case. There are all kinds of issues brought about by the birth of this child (it is bi-racial, for example), but the film seems to abandon the issue just like Alfie abandons his women. In another subplot, Alfie becomes temporarily impotent. This leads him to a doctors office visit in which a lump is discovered in his private parts area. Does he have some kind of cancer? Nope, he ends up being just fine, but a little more resolved to live more cleanly. This subplot also gives him the opportunity to meet an old man who conveniently gives him some advice later in the film. Other than that, these subplots really don't contribute much to the story.

The ending was handled correctly. I feared for a moment that the film was going to chicken out and go for the traditional happy ending that so many films have to have. But it didn't happen. Alfie is left confused and alone. He still hasn't figured out the question posed by the film's tag line.

Why did this movie fail? Well, I'd have to chalk that up to the fact that this film really isn't made for a wide niche of people. Most men would look at this as a "date movie" and be scared off. Women probably aren't interested in seeing a film about a guy who screws around and DOESN'T find true love in the end. Overall, I'd say give it a chance. It's technically well made, and well acted. That's more than you can say for a lot of films these days.

7 of 10 stars.

The Hound.

Less Than Halfie

[arichmondfwc · 1/10 · 10 March 2005]

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?

Perhaps even good social satire

[georgiapeachy · 10/10 · 5 November 2004]

Reading the other reviews made me wonder if this is the type of movie only certain people like. I went to this movie with a group of my female friends expecting another annoying and boring romantic comedy. I personally didn't want to see it much because I deplore the values presented in so many movies, but the fact that I love Jude Law swayed me. I was very surprised to find that Alfie really isn't much of a romantic comedy. Yes, it is somewhat funny and it is about romance, but if you forced me to describe it I'd have to tag it with 'philosophical social satire.' No, I'm not tagging this as a substitute for Rousseau, but people familiar with satires might find it along the lines of Thackeray's Vanity Fair, Provost's Manon Lescaut, or Petroniu's Satyricon. Though admittedly not of the same caliber the themes of the emptiness of those immersed in 'immorality' and the innate human desire for satisfying relationships are portrayed admirably. I can call this satire though only of my own interpretations- in my opinion this movie ridicules Alfie's immoral lifestyle quite satirically. No matter what your interpretation, I don't see how this movie could be seen as glamorizing his lifestyle. Let me tell you that I was not laughing when I walked out of the theater and there were parts of this movie that made me shed tears. You don't need an appreciation of satire to enjoy this movie though- Law's acting is amazing and he's also gorgeous, the story interested most of my friends and I, and the cinematography is very chic. While it's by no means perfect, I think it deserves the 3.5/4 stars the Chicago Tribune gave it.

a fine performance

[petersj-2 · 7/10 · 15 October 2005]

It is bound to be compared to the original.We all know that the movie is about a young man, a real chick magnet that women find irresistible. Alfie is a cad, he is meant to be a lovable cad and he is a young man afraid of commitment. The original dealt with several issues and the new version does side step a few issues. I felt aids needed some mention. The old Alfie did not have that to contend with.The world then was concerned with abortion but today, abortion is generally seen as a woman's right. Its true there are a few nut cases who for quaint reasons still oppose abortion as a woman's choice but generally we see them as stodgy old conservatives.Quaint but quite silly. Still it was a hot topic back then. There is one thing in this movie that makes it work. Jude Law is perfect. It is quite simply an outstanding performance. The cheeky chats to the camera, the charm and the masculinity of Alfie is wonderful. I always found Michael Caines Alfie very dull, pallid and even rather effeminate. Caine looked like a pasty pom who had never seen the light of day, let alone a street fight.His working class ethic was simply phoney. Law beats him hands down! Law is all man. Albeit, cheeky man. There are wonderful new scenes such as the chat in the toilets with the old man who can't piddle. A stark message to Alfie of the world ahead. Alfie never means to hurt any one but he does. I preferred the women in the original film, especially Shelly Winters but the original had one essential ingredient missing, Mr Law. Jude Law, who gives a faultless, restrained performance. It was hard to understand why women swooned over Michael Caine. When you watch Jude Law you cant help thinking, who wouldn't?

OutLaw

[don_agu · 1/10 · 7 January 2005]

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.

If you haven't seen the original...

[dgordy · 21 October 2004]

... as I haven't (FAR too young when it originally came out!), and can judge the movie without preconceptions, it's actually quite, quite good. From others' comments, I believe this should be called a reconception rather than a remake - and face it, if they followed the original, time-bound character/plot, it really WOULDN'T work today - so there is no sense in decrying that this isn't slavish to the Caine version. On its own terms, the movie is very stylish, with excellent cinematography, directing and editing, and the acting is top-notch across the board [For Broadway aficionados, look for Tony winners Jefferson (I Am My Own Wife) Mays as the Doctor and Hairspray's Dick Latessa as Joe].

Law is disarmingly charming as Alfie, and that goes a long way in selling the character, and making his attitude towards women somewhat tolerable. Of the women, Sarandon {looking incredible for 58! ... and delivering her final coup de grace with devilish elan], Long, Krakowski and especially (surprisingly?) Law's current squeeze Miller all make strong impressions. Tomei is OK, but is really neither attractive or special enough to justify Law's interest in her [and his fixation on her young son is a little creepy/unbelievable for such a womanizer]. The substitution of the interracial dalliance with Long for the abortion is a stroke of genius, as it will probably have the same 'shocking' effect for some in the audience. Yes, the direct address is a little jarring at times, but is necessary and DOES follow the original.

On the minus side, the Mick Jagger/Dave Stewart music DOESN'T work, but Joss Stone's remake of the title song is effective. If you can forget, or better yet, haven't seen the original to compare this version to, I think you will find it a very entertaining, relevant movie (compared to most Hollywood remake dreck). I wouldn't even be surprised to find this garnering quite a few Oscar noms (given this year's weak field) come the end of the year... Give it a chance.

What's he all about Hollywood?

[schpalding · 6/10 · 20 December 2004]

Jude Law... What is it about Jude Law I don't like? I think it might be that only women find him attractive and all men thinks he looks like the kid you'd happily ignore at school. We accept that Pitt, Clooney et al have that sex appeal that make women swoon, but LAW? He's just a....boy, right? And that's where this film fails. Whereas Michael Caine strutted those dark 60's rain-soaked streets in the original with the air of a MAN who really did have every woman in the palm of his hand only to see them all slip though his fingers, Law just doesn't have that gravitas. We don't believe that the womanly Marisa Tommei would sink into deep depression about his ambivalence. Or that Susan Sarandon would have anything more than a one-night with the cheeky young scamp. But hey, what do I know, after all Law is currently dating the pretty Sienna Miller who is one of his conquests in the film. And Law keeps nailing this big Hollywood roles like in 'I Heart Huckabees'... What's it all about indeed.

Beautiful Cinematography!

[hotchildndacity5 · 7/10 · 15 August 2005]

I thought this film was shot beautifully. The DP put a lot of passion into creating a picture that was absolutely beautiful to watch. The colors and other lighting detail did not go unnoticed by this viewer! In addition, Jude Law was simply irresistible like Robert Palmer. I couldn't take my eyes off of him and thoroughly enjoyed his performance. I cannot think of a missed beat or any place where there was not subtext. I did not know a guy that cute could be so extraordinarily talented. And yes, I know how that sounds. I think it was worth watching just for the technical beauty and to marvel at Law's acting ability. He has in me, a new fan.

a politically correct version, not as good as the original

[ph-16 · 6/10 · 23 October 2004]

It is somewhat unfair to compare Alfie 2004 with the original Alfie 1996. However, when the remake adds very little to the original then the comparison has to be made. The 1966 film was written by the Irish writer Bill Naughton and set in swinging London. Alfie was a truly original man, an original character at the time. The new Alfie is nothing novel but rather a half-hearted kickback to the good old sexist days.

I think the greatest difference in the remake is that whilst Bill Naughton's original work still forms the basis of the story, co-writers Charles Shyer and Elaine Pope have been brought in. Shyer is author of such American slushy films as Father of the Bride, Baby Boom, Irreconcilable Differences and Private Benjamin. Pope on the other hand has written for Seinfeld. With these two contributing you end up with a rather fascicle American, politically correct, bite less movie which leaves you with half a smile a lot of the time.

Jude Law as Alfie works well but it would have been good to have made him a little angrier, rather like the Michael Caine character. Marisa Tomei and Susan Sarandon both ply nice characters but unfortunately, the other support characters have little substance and, yet again, no bite. For instance, Sienna Miller is simply a dizzy blond and I neither felt sorry nor angry for her: she is boring. Nia Long plays the politically correct African American (read black) woman who Alfie gets pregnant but who again has little power to her performance. Is she angry, distraught, vaguely upset? It is hard to know.

In the original the supporting cast included: Shelley Winters, Millicent Martin, Jane Asher, Shirley Anne Field, Eleanor Bron, Denholm Elliott, Alfie Bass and Graham Stark. Unfortunately, there are no actors with such gravitas in the 2004 remake.

I don't depend on nobody and nobody depends on me...

[film-critic · 2/10 · 28 April 2005]

Oh, what a powerful film the original Alfie was. What amazing creativity, themes, and structure it had! It was enjoyable to watch because Caine has this uncanny ability to bring you into his world. He is so calm and "everyday" that Alfie's words pull you into the screen and allow you to become involved with his life. I only wish this could have been true with this disastrous remake. Jude Law attempts at every angle possible to bring that pizazz that Caine brought to the screen, but ultimately fails in every attempt. While Caine, in the original, felt like he could have represented you or I, Law in this film, feels like he is ripped from the pages of Vogue or In Style magazine. You know that point in a magazine where you feel that the ads featuring models wearing clothes that you will never fully appreciate seem to clutter the pages instead of articles? Well, that is exactly what this remake felt to me. Instead of a powerful story being the central focus of the film, we were bombarded, nearly drowned, in model-esquire images of the people of NYC and how only the very beautiful are attracted to the very beautiful. Coupled with cinematography that feels like a super-budged GAP ad, I could only squint as my stomach hurled with disgust.

"What's it all about, Alfie?" A simple question that is the central focus of the first film, while in this pathetic remake, it is never disclosed until the very end. Why did this film suffer? First of all, Jude Law is no Michael Caine. He doesn't have that "every man" sort of appeal that dragged me into the film. I never really felt like he was talking to me, but instead trying to maneuver his way into the mantra of the female audience. That was a huge problem for me as well, in the original, Caine talks to the men of the audience, while in the remake, Law attempts to gain sympathy from the females in the audience. Law just cannot seem to capture the ideals of Alfie. He is a womanizer, I know that, but there are more layers to this character than just that. Sadly, Law brought none of them out. Even at the end, I never felt as if there was a final moment of realization or symbolic referencing. "What was it all about?" The original, I could tell you, for this remake, it seemed a bit fuzzy and dislocated. I don't know what it was about except a man not committed to anything glides through life with a smile somehow still located on his face. Perhaps it wasn't just Law's work, but also the ladies that accompanied him. These are women that the average man will never meet, or ever encounter. So, how could we relate to the story? Marisa Tomei, Susan Sarandon, Nia Long, and even Sienna Miller seemed to give glamorized renditions of hurt women. The original was about Alfie, but several believe that the staples to the story were the women that surrounded him. I can honestly say that the staples to this film were not the women, because Jude Law hailed top billing. Did the director even see the original?

I would like to address the issue of whether this was a remake or just an "updated" version of the original Alfie. My answer is that it is a remake that crashes considerably when you place the two films together. My biggest issue with this remake was that it addressed nothing. In the original film, it was apparent from the first 30 minutes of the movie that Alfie was a troubled man who carried trouble on his back and deposited trouble to each one of his encounters. One might even say victims. Was it a sign of the times or something that is inherent in the female species that lead to the destruction of so many hopes and dreams? The 60's were a time of floundering economically and politically for most of the world. Did Alfie seize on the free-sex, free love atmosphere that became prevalent during that time or were his predatory skills developed much earlier in his life? Alfie wasn't strong enough a character to go into self-destruct alone. The weakness of his character insisted that he bring everyone down with him. Just as in the animal kingdom the predator preys on the victim that is unsuspecting, most vulnerable and most importantly the victim who cannot hurt him. He must always stay insulated from the outside world. Yet, in the remake, I saw nothing of the sort. I saw random chaos where Hollywood regained our sympathy by making our lead character this "can never be mad at Jude Law". Not living in NYC or in a place where models walk around on the streets, nor a frequent viewer of Vogue magazine, I didn't find the appeal of subtle themes of this film at all. Alfie goes through the motions as he does in the original, but there is considerable chunk of life missing.

Overall, this was a very disappointing remake. The music just didn't seem to carry that same charm that the original did, nor did the rest of the cast. This was not an art film, but instead a Hollywood creation that lacked the appeal of the original. It was created to boost some sex appeal for Jude Law instead of showing this radical vision of our world. Alfie is genuine in the original, and quite plastic in this remake, which ultimately hurt the overall impression of the film. Those that say that you cannot compare the original and this remake together because they are two separate films, I would completely disagree with. This Alfie was a remake and was poorly put together while the original was, "powerful, humorous, yet pointed story".

Grade: ** out of *****

The better "Alfie" version, hands down. A must-see movie.

[mdenvee · 10/10 · 26 December 2012]

I'm probably writing the only review which sees this newer version of Alfie as far, far better than the original. I know it will inflame many loyal fans of the Caine original, but I can easily say the Jude version is solidly better in every respect. But, I will admit that having seen the new version first, I can understand how some people may be biased in their opinion- typically the first version is better, and actually conditions your mind to unconsciously compare the new one with the old one. Nevertheless, it does not mean it should invalidate a review, provided that there is careful objectivity. I think most significant is the different type of film the Jude version is- a more engaging, heartfelt,'balanced' version with a both modern and vintage flare. The Caine version was way too cold, serious, dry, and somewhat humorless, and one could not relate to Caine's Alfie- he was a bit creepy and his womanizing behavior seemed more deliberate and emotionless, while Jude's Alfie is a more charming, sweet and in most ways innocent character who happens to indulge to excess seducing and ultimately manipulating women. But in the Jude Alfie, it's almost like a kid in a candy store who has a free pass to candy- Alfie's free pass is his charm and good looks which enables the Jude version to come across more convincing and lovable... as opposed to the Caine Alfie who is not especially handsome or charming and comes across as calculating and a true sexual compulsive. Don't get me wrong- I love Michael Caine and I am an old-movie buff and normally I prefer the original version of almost all films. But even great movies like The Maltese Falcon had a prior version before Humphrey Bogart which lacked the music, tempo, personality, humor, and emotional connection. Another 2nd and better version of other great movies are The Man Who Knew Too Much and Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Meet Joe Black. The originals are good in many ways, but lack the "total package" of a great movie, almost as if the first version were a rough draft. Anyway, getting back to the Jude Alfie...I really can't say enough about the impact the movie has on guys and girls in their 20s and 30s. It's a both bright and dark as well as moral movie without pontificating or preaching and it covers a myriad of aspects to relationships and many hard lessons and realities. Every character fits perfectly with the direction and writing of the film and seems real-life and just very engaging. Caine's Alfie seems like a psychological analysis of a sexually obsessed man who's bereft of emotion and the women he womanizes. His film is decent, but pales in comparison to other Caine films and frankly he is quite miscast for the role of Aflie. Jude Law is brilliant and one of the finest and most versatile (and under-used) actors I've ever seen (as he was in Talented Ripley). He literally becomes Alfie, a womanizer that you love but want to hate (but can't). And via his acting and his script, Jude makes you in many ways identify (and almost excuse) his character's behavior. The newer Alfie is written with a bluntness and brutal candor about the male and female gender and how we unconsciously see each other- this may come across as offensive to ultra liberals or feminists, but none of it is offensive or hurtful- it is just life's reality. The flow of the film is perfect and nicely edited and transitions seamlessly. The film has high points and low points, which the audience can relate to, and creates the effect of not making it a mono-toned film like the original Alfie, and this is what I meant by "balanced". For a film of this difficult subject matter to work right, it cannot be as somber, relentless and two-dimensional as Caine's version. A real expression of superb writing and direction in a film is when it can have both happy moments, funny moments, and immediately after have serious, even heartbreaking moments and ultimately teach a lesson which anyone can learn from. An example of the newer Alfie being a lighter film, but just as powerful and even more shocking is the discovery that he has a child which he had thought was aborted. This is likened to the Caine version where Alfie see's the actual aborted fetus remains and has an emotional breakdown. The new version is just as stunning (and actually more unexpected) and in my opinion more of a reality check of life's twists and turns and the lesson that our actions may have life long consequences. While I can appreciate the impact of the Caine sequence, it is basically 'over-dramatic' since the Jude version itself is just as or more effective and instead of horrifying the audience and unbalancing the film, it is both sad and happy when we learn Jude's Alfie has a son. This is just one example of the tone of the newer Alfie-- different, just as powerful, better acted, better written, better music, better scenery, better flow, more realistic, and far more enjoyable to watch. And most important, a film that literally all of us can identify with at some stages in out lives. Truly a great film. 10/10.

Not as good as the original but still reasonably entertaining

[grantss · 6/10 · 24 June 2014]

Not as good as the original, but it has its moments.

The original Alfie was a visceral experience. You felt infuriated at his behaviour, yet laughed at it occasionally (at him, not with him). There was an edginess to it, as if it was going out of its way to annoy and offend you. Plus you had the superb performance of Michael Caine.

This version is a lot less annoying, which is bad. Alfie's actions almost seem...normal and commonplace. His actions are certainly not being glorified, but they seem a lot less extreme.

The new version does have its charms though. Jude Law is suitably suave and charming in the lead role. There is a swagger and big city sophistication to it. The soundtrack (mostly composed and performed by Mick Jagger and Dave Stewart) is great, and works very well with the movie.

So, not as good as the original, but reasonably entertaining nonetheless.

What the heck even was this?

[GiraffeDoor · 5/10 · 5 April 2022]

I don't think this movie new what it was supposed to be adapting or maybe it didn't care. A movie very much of its time is given an update and what's left is basically a feature length perfume commercial.

Not horrible really. I don't know how I feel about Jude Law's nice guy interpretation of this character. He is sort of developed but I never got the impression of a womaniser, just a straight guy who found the magic spell that lets him have sex a lot. He's nice to the larger lady and stuff but...I'm not sure what I'm supposed to make of everything.

Stylish and cinematically radiant (colors from street lights reflect from a dark window spattered with rain), its slick and sort of funny though not in a way that's easy to take for more than ten minutes at a time. It is not the mature rumination that it thinks it is as the only message here is "sex can cause problems".

I always did find it pretty sexy and kind of arousing as a kid so like I said, it's not like this movie has nothing to offer but in a word: sophomoric.

Surprisingly Good

[moviefan2003va · 8/10 · 21 March 2005]

Let me start by saying that I did not see the Michael Caine version of this movie and understand this is a much revered version in the UK. Therefore, I have nothing to compare this movie with. However, I enjoyed it. It was slightly more exceptional than most movies about relationships because of Jude Law. He adds a depth that only a person can with real talent. He is surrounded by a good cast that also puts in good performances: Susan Sarandon, Sienna Miller, Nia Long, Jane Krakowski, and Marisa Tomei. The unexpected thing about this movie to me wasn't that it was necessarily just a man's movie. It was also very much a movie about friendships and women.

What's it all about?

[richard-pullen-1 · 7/10 · 20 October 2004]

"Alfie" was an okay, harmless take on the Michael Caine film... People will not like it because it is a remake... But if you are a fan of Jude Law then it's going to be one of your favourite films!

I managed to get an early preview of this and a lot of people laughed in the appropriate moments etc... The photography was quite impressive plus the edit was nicely done too.

The Mick Jagger and Dave Stewart original music is annoying though... Jagger needs to stick with the Stones!

Okay performances all round... It's mostly about Jude Law's Alfie... and he does alright carrying the film. The support cast of Sarandon, Tomei, Epps & Nia Long do a good job though.

Hits the stereotypes to the max.

Not worthy to fill Sir Michael's Italian loafers

[El-Stumpo · 1/10 · 2 November 2007]

If Western culture is a serpent eating its own tail, it follows that it will eventually choke on its own feces.

Put simply: the original version of Alfie was a Snake Feast. The watery, transparent 2004 Alfie, another redundant remake from the Selected Works of Sir Michael Bleedin' Caine, is Snake Sh*t.

One of the British box office hits of 1965, Alfie is a snapshot from a moment in history, a perfectly framed view of the Sexual Revolution from a working class perspective. It was both a highbrow sex farce and a populist kitchen sink drama with some wry observations about social class and convention thrown in, all held together by the magnetic presence of its star on the rise. Alfie's like a timeless character from Thackary who spends more than half his screen time justifying his appallingly rakish behavior to the audience; a vain, cocky yet insecure and neurotic Lothario attempting to escape responsibility and pain through a series of doomed sexual misadventures. He emerges at the end of the film unrepentant and only a little wiser, turning to the camera with the immortal tag-line "Wossit all abaht?" It's that timelessness the makers of Alfie '04 attempt to capitalize on in their grotesque carbon copy, updating its East End setting to lower Manhattan but with the female archetypes - or "birds" - left intact. There's the doormat girlfriend, the frustrated wife, and Susan Sarandon updates Shelly Winters' loud, vulgar 50-something man-eater as a slightly more classy 2004 model. A pointed comment on the eternal sexual condition? More like an industry that's fat, indolent, and believes the general public have a long-term memory no longer than six months. One can only imagine its audience are cocktail-guzzling Manhattan matrons with a yen for all things British, like Bridget Jones or Sarah Ferguson, and Jude Law's posterior. True, there are more shots of Law as Alfie "on the job" as it were, but those are mighty big shoes he's walking in. Jude Law comes across affable and worldly and tosses in the odd Caine-ism, but on final judgment is a pale streak of snake sh*t not worthy to fill Sir Michael's Italian loafers.

Maybe that's the problem. Caine's Alfie is cold, calculating, and at times utterly repellent. One dubious conquest he refers to as "it" is set to work as his personal slave, and then cast off for showing too much affection. Alfie '04 attempts to sanitize him, sand off some of the uncomfortable un-PC angles. Alfie 65's moment of truth arrives when the dumpy middle-aged wife of his hospital chum asks Alfie for a backyard abortion (Alfie only slept with her, mind you, to help his lunch go down). As he stares down at his miniature reflection, Caine's face is a contorted mask of pure sorrow. Law's moment of truth in Alfie '04 - no plot spoilers here - is so wide of the mark it's an insult. Strip the character of his tics and grimaces and cutesy cockney patter, and ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Invisible Man.

Even more offensive is the use of 60s pop art icons to evoke the original's aura of cool. A Chet Baker poster, Alfie's scooter - in fact the entire coke-smeared, boots and fur coated, Nico-meets-Julie Christie coquetry of the Nikki character, played by Sienna Miller. The Clash once sang "No Elvis, Beatles or the Rolling Stones in 1977" and the same can be said about Alfie. That Golden Age of popular cinema in the Sixties could actually be about experimenting with style and breaking cultural taboos; not so in 2005, where surface passes for style, smarminess is a stand-in for genuine wit, where sh*t is champagne and sacred ground is something for film industry Burkes and Hares to plunder at will.