Alfie

... 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.

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!

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

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.

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.