Irrésistible Alfie

Why turn "Alfie" into a chick flick?

Maybe for those who mis-remembered the bright, scabrous, creative original. I'm finding that most reviewers are remembering it incorrectly, whereas I saw it for the first time the weekend before I saw this too-pretty make-over.

Most reviewers remember it as black-and-white, which it wasn't.

Most remember it as reflective of the Swinging '60's of London, but the mise en scene was London at the cusp, as attitudes were just starting to change, so characters were flopping in moral confusion.

Most remember the women as pre-liberation, but their passivity was more complicated; Alfie had an unerring ability to hone in on women with horrificallly low self-esteem, regardless of their marital or economic status.

Michael Caine is such an established actor now, none remember that he was not a conventionally handsome lead to be conquering all these women, let alone that he was a cocky Cockney like the Angry Young Man of the period kitchen sink British dramas.

Few remember just how heartless he was - calling all his conquests "it".

None seem to remember how vividly babies and abortion figure into the plot, a la "Vera Drake."

The new version is confused about all these elements.

The cinematography is beautiful, but has to cover up for the fact that while it supposedly takes place in New York City, it was actually filmed in Manchester, England so is missing atmosphere that's so critical to the same ground that's trod in "Sex and the City;" frequent background mattes of the Brooklyn Bridge are weak atmosphere-builders . And this is also some sort of retro NYC that allows smoking in bars and doesn't require helmets on mopeds, which is also a retro means of individual transport.

The film probably takes place in the '00's - but the flashy split screens and the women's make-up and styles are retro-'60's. "Keen Eddie"'s Sienna Miller is made up as a duplicate of the original's Jane Asher. Marisa Tomei even has her hair in a flip with a wide head band and Nia Long is made up like "Cleopatra Jones" from the early '70's.

At least one time we do get a glimpse of a condom package, but that's only obvious now because films today show them, not that they weren't used in the '60's; it does take place in post Roe v. Wade NYC.

The women's personality upgrades are inconsistently effective and there's no drama to how the incredibly beautiful, posh-sounding Jude Law captures them.

Susan Sarandon's self-assured, independent entrepreneur is a sexy, believable update of Shelley Winters' rich widow, making her closing dig at Alfie as a gigolo even more devastating.

Miller's character is now trendily manic depressive, or some such chemically-dependent disorder, rather than just an insecure runaway, which weakens Alfie's hold on her; that character's passive aggressive manipulation of him and how she bypasses him to straighten out her life are missing completely, so we lose some insight into both his cruelty and comeuppance.

Long's character's crisis is weakened from the original's, as her pregnancy conflates two different affairs, with the emphasis instead put on male friendship betrayal, the friend that this "Alfie" claims in passing calls his women "it".

"Alfie"'s health scare had to be updated from TB, and the cancer testing is done for laughs; the lack of mention of Viagra is odd if it is in fact taking place now. Here the older male confidante is stuck in deus ex machina, rather than in plot context.

While the original stands up 35 years later as a mordant and brilliant, matter of fact presentation of "moral lapses," the mild update is considerably weakened and Hollywoodized as respectable company, such that the finale doesn't even segue smoothly into the first musical line of "What's it all about?"

The soundtrack selections are otherwise excellent, but as confusingly retro as the rest of the atmosphere, with neo-soul teen Joss Stone singing and Mick Jagger collaborating with Dave Stewart on originals that sound old.

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.

The tagline for the new film 'Alfie' ask us, what's it all about? The answer, unfortunately, is that it's about sheer disappointment.

The film focuses solely on Alfie Elkins, a swinging young womanizer packed with style and a charm that could only be British. After an all too brief introduction to our protagonist and his long list of lady-friends, some kind of plot begins to develop – sort of. We move through far too many completely unrelated situations, all of which only have any relevance at all because of their connection to our main character.

The film does almost nothing to stay focused on a character or situation long enough to develop anything genuine; one minute we have the beginnings of a story with one girl, the next minute we're on to something completely different. You may hope that the film returns to these unfinished story arcs, but it rarely does. And those special times when the story comes back to something that was left unfinished, the film manages to once again leave the story too quickly, adding further loose ends and unresolved issues.

This episodic structure does give the film a pace that is representational of Alfie's dating life – constantly moving from one thing to another, never letting anything unfold – but this does not work to the advantage of the film. Rather than giving it an interesting structure that parallels the story, it creates confusion and disorientation, and even worse than that – a loss of the empathy for the characters that would be present if the film took the time to develop characters and stories properly.

In fact, just about everything in the film lacks conviction, particularly in the places where it is needed the most; moments that should provoke emotion tend to leave the audience wanting something more substantial, which once again is an issue with the film's poor use of development.

If it weren't for Jude Law's charming performance as Alfie Elkins, the film would collapse entirely under its own poor craft. Of course, this is not at all to say that Law saves the film; he does nothing of the sort. His performance, strong as always, just happens to stop the film from being a complete waste of time. His energy is strong and his talent is clear, but it is not enough to bring the film to that next level of quality.

The photography and cinematography, while positively beautiful at times, is staggeringly inconsistent and often not at all fitting to the film's needs. Portions of the film are very nicely photographed, which almost seems like a waste of talent. A spiffy paint job on a car may be appealing to the eye, but why even bother if the car doesn't have an engine? This is precisely what Alfie is all about: some nice looks and a fairly strong performance, but sadly there is no engine to be found.

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.

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.