So sad. One of my top 10 books I think some novels are impossible to transpose to the big screen without reducing them to a mere shadow or less.
Jack Kerouac has always been one of my favourite authors along with On The Road being one of my favourite books. I was anxious about this film, mostly because I felt the book was unfilmable. How would the passion I felt from reading the book translate to the screen? I give Walter Salles credit for giving it a try, it is beautifully filmed but no matter how beautiful it looks, it falls flat comparing it to the book. Garrett Hedlund and Sam Riley are Dean and Sal, Viggo blew my mind playing Old Bull (great impression of William Burroughs). I really wanted to love this movie but it really let me down big time.
just as insufferable as the book. manages to draw out the sexism & white male privilege inherent in the beats quite well...which i'm pretty sure was not the intention.
There were very few moments in "On the Road" that this viewer actually enjoyed. For almost 2 1/2 hours, there was barely a coherent storyline, except for a few major plot points that pretty much suspended the rest. Time spent that could've been spent on other, better films. My only appreciation lies in the fact that the film is based on Jack Kerouac's book. Other than that, a waste of time and utterly boring.
Basically an instruction how to bury a great piece of literature in a mediocre movie...
This is definitely an abridged version of the book (to bring it down to a marketable running time, i assume). Lots is certainly cut out - which makes one scratch their head when considering the drawn-out sex scenes full of Stewart’s fake moaning. But that said, this is actually a pretty decent adaption that manages to maintain the spirit of Kerouac’s novel.
Long gestating adaptation of Kerouac's essential american novel truly captures the spirit it contained. The quest for the road to settle the raging spirit within looking for meaning; looking for something more; looking for something other than accepting the complacency of the so-called american dream. Salles and Rivera have brought the pages to life in a way that doesn't feel the need to tell a convential story.
Hedlund and Riley perfectly capture Dean and Sal with strong supporting turns all around. The hand held cinematography by Gautier captures the wanderlust and the majesty of the road. Time period well captured though interesting that Alberta and Montreal had to double for post war America. After the many years of false starts and failed financing its such a pleasure to see the book so well adapted.
The film makes you want to travel immediately, just leave and see where you'll end up. It's a feeling that keeps hanging for a few days. I like the attraction from Sal/Jack to Dean/Neal, the romantisation (is it an english word?) of his best friend and his lifestyle and the reality behind it that makes it end the way it ends. Do watch it!
A totally acceptable representation of Kerouac's travels, but not the book itself. The film deals much more with each character than Sal Paradise (Jack Kerouac) and how he interprets and perceives each caracter. At first the movie seems like it is going to be very stereotypical and cliche, but it end ups being at the least an entertaining film from beginning to end, and at most, a moving piece of cinematic beauty.
Certainly well put together - beautifully shot, and even Stewart radiates. I enjoyed the film’s free-spirited nature, vibrant atmosphere and period setting. Indeed: Shadows-esque.
Surprised at how good Kristen Stewart's performance was. Entertaining, thoughtful, and well-executed. Beautifully shot as well
In a totally anti-utilitarian way, the following question comes to my mind: "What's the point?". A totally utilitarian answer comes right away: "for the money". What structures this movie is the complete opposite of what the whole beatnik stuff was all about...
I agree with "getting something back", now, concerning this "something", the matter of what it is, how much of it you plan to get, in which order you set your priorities and what is the main purpose of making any kind of "art" is a question of principles and it's way too subjective for us to try and generalize. I maintain what I said and would seriously advise you to rethink your statement.
I never said money should be the SINGLE priority, I stated it should be A priority, implying that it is one amongst others. I think it's presumptuous to assume that the makers of this film placed money as their singular priority when you have no basis for that argument whatsoever, You cannot make an argument about their intentions without being presumptuous because you do not know their intentions. By the way, the word art is also far too subjective to even attempt to define.
Walter Salles' adaptation of Jack Kerouac's quintessential chronicle of the the beatnik generation captures a palpable sense of youthful rebellion in its tale of two young men and a young woman on the road search of freedom and new experiences. The problem is that it's a bit of a mess. Kristen Stewart is a highlight, but in evoking Kerouac's rambling prose it gets lost, and the heavy handed narration doesn't work.