User reviews

There are very few works of 20th-century American literature that can be called indispensable to our understanding of our culture. And one of these few is Jack Kerouac's On the Road. As everyone knows, it's the thinly-veiled autobiographical account of Kerouac and his friends in their pointless but exuberant adventures across America. For 50 years, it's been waiting to be made into a movie. Now, at last.

So, everyone already knows the story… well, no; chances are, if you're like me, you read the book and yet remember almost nothing of the story. The book burns through its shreds of storyline as if they were just tinder for the blaze of its energy; the real fuel is the pacing, even with all its redundancy. It's the momentum that sucks us into the breathless chaos of Kerouac's world. We come away impressed by the energy, not the content.

Film could certainly have been used to amplify this effect, but this is not that film. Instead, we have a more conventional treatment, focusing on character development. It's a nice production, with an attractive cast. But the story comes at us very differently from the book experience. The manuscript has been rewritten to add breathing space and objectivity. We see Sal Paradise, only half-formed at the start of the story, pull himself together to become a serious writer. We see the endlessly exuberant Dean Moriarity ultimately coming to grips with the progressive self- destruction attributable to his amorality, and suffering. This might be a fair reading of Kerouac's ultimate feelings about that part of his life, but it's not the feeling that Kerouac shares with us in the book. We have lost our innocence; our last chance to revisit it, even for a few hours, is taken away.

I'm not going to rage against this re-conception of the story, though, because it makes other changes from the book that might be improvements. Several episodes that were censored from the book are restored in the film. (Some discussion of this at http://www.univie.ac.at/Anglistik/easyrider/data/BeatEros.htm). So the movie is more historically accurate, and far more sexually explicit than the book. (That could also explain its delayed US release). In one poignant scene, Carlos Marx (Allen Ginsberg) is whining to Sal about how vulnerable he feels due to his poorly-returned love for Dean. To the best of my recollection, that conversation was not in the book (please tell me if you believe otherwise), but was expressed in a private letter from Ginsberg to Kerouac many years after the fact. This kind of thing changes the emotional flow of the story, certainly, but it adds depth, too.

Few of us will actually suffer nostalgia for the gritty overindulgences of the Beats. But remember, this came at a time when society was absolutely saturated with the message that everyone should be "normal," safe, predictable. Without the tiny minority of Beats attacking that message, and specifically without On The Road to chronicle that attack, the cultural revolution of the 1960's would have been even more difficult than it was, and perhaps less effective. Good, bad, or ugly, we must embrace this story.

The On The Road novel has inspired numerous readers, myself included to take an American road trip. Will the film have the same effect? I sincerely doubt it. And herein lays the problem. Whilst the book takes the reader on an exuberant, spirited journey full of life, the film puzzlingly slows the pace right down and presents a muted, almost depressed version of the same story.

This is best illustrated by the presentation of the character of Dean Moriarty. He should be the driving force of the story, pushing the storyline on with his crazed excitement for the good and bad in life. On the printed page he can barely speak fast enough to get all his thoughts out. However in the film he huffs and puffs his way from one scene to the next, speaking in a laconic drawl, whilst lacking all the charm and charisma that is supposed to make him so alluring. He is the muse for the writer character of Sal, but anyone coming to the film fresh without having read the book, may well struggle to understand why.

The film lacks a rounded sense of the hedonistic side of the journey. The sex is arguably overplayed and whilst there is some drugs and jazz, there is little of the booze. Crucially the characters rarely seem to be having a good time. The film seems to focus on the melodramatic, miserable aspects of the characters lives at the destinations they travel to, but fails to contrast this with wild and exciting times spent on the road. The film does not convey a sense of travelling for the journeys sake; they always just seem to be in the car in order to get to another destination. The only time the film gets anywhere near the free spirited adventure of the book is when the characters reach Mexico in the later stages of the film, but this is too little too late.

I did wonder whether the muted atmosphere of the film was a deliberate ploy of the filmmakers, however the last ten minutes would indicate not. Here we see the character of Sal typing up the notes he has made during the road trips, seemingly franticly typing to capture all the wild, fun, crazy times had on the road. However this does not reflect what the viewer has just witnessed on screen for the past two hours.

Taken on its own terms the film does offer fine cinematography, costume and the look of the time, as well as some decent acting (hence my score of 5 out of 10). However as an adaption of a seminal piece of literature, it deserves to be judged against the source material and in not capturing the true spirit of the book, it is a big fail.

For the record, I'm a big Kerouac fan. However, I don't think On the Road was his best work. I like his later, more introspective writing, but I know I'm in the minority here. There's a good reason why we had to wait so long for a screen version of On the Road. Impossible as it may be to believe, some novels are not written with potential movie rights in mind. On the Road is a sometimes rambling, stream of consciousness, string of vignettes without a clear goal in mind. It is a novel about hedonistic-death-driving on America's highways in a quest for life and a run from it. For the members of Kerouac's (Sal Paradise's) group, life is controlled self-destruction because death is preferable to boredom. These attitudes spring from the times in which the reality of potential nuclear disaster hung over the nation and the attitudes so induced found expression in youth who turned the directionlessness of life into life for the moment.

Making a film on such a book requires selection. Kerouac's hedonistic rampage across America, as selected by director Walter Salles, looks more mindless and sex-spiced than it did in the novel. Kerouac, as we see in his later works, was a hedonist with a conscience; a deadly combination which likely led to him drinking himself to death. Director Salles sees what he wants to see, a sex-crazed, drug-crazed, two-dimensional man. If this was truly the man represented in the novel, the novel would not have had the enduring quality that has made it literature.

I liked the way the 1950s was captured in the film. It was as close to perfection as you could get. The importance of jazz with its improvisation mirrors the lives of the travelers. The acting is good but the interaction is not. Maybe that was the point. There is no need for interaction in an age when the highest morality was based on selfishness. The movie may be okay to watch once, but I would prefer not to go down this road again.

I will try to be as short as I can be in my review, but I am just very surprised about the very positive reviews on IMDb. For me this was another huge disappointment. yes there are great landscapes, the photography is nice and the actors surely are OK, the music is often inspiring, but even if the movie basically tells the same events as in the book, I found it pretty boring, and above all the spirit of the book, about freedom etc, was completely gone. Too many scenes are just taken inside hotels rooms, houses etc, isn't this movie entitled on the road? Again, regarding the spirit of freedom, in the book surely wasn't all about sex and multiple partners etc, because that's not at all the freedom Jack Kerouac was talking about when he wrote it, these components have been way too much highlighted. I am sorry but I left the cinema pretty disappointed, if we had to wait all these year for a version of the book, and this is the result, well it would have been better to only have the book.

Hemingway was terrified of being boring. Compared to Hemingway, Kerouac was completely & utterly fearless.

So let's take a page out one of Kerouac's best books, start at the beginning, & let the truth seep out.

I first encountered "On the Road" in the public library when I was in 6th grade. It spawned a fascination, an obsession, an addiction. Between the age of 12 & 18, outside of school, the Beat writers were all that I read. I devoured them. And in the years since my youth Kerouac has morphed from an obsession to a comfort author, I read him to help cushion the blows life brings. "Maggie Cassidy," is still my favorite.

That being said, I walked into this flick with extremely low expectations. I'm more than familiar with the source material & couldn't see how it could translate into anything but a dull film. I expected the film to stagnate. I wasn't really disappointed in this. Anyone that has read "On the Road" has to question the wisdom of attempting to translate that into a decent movie.

Like the novel, there are parts of this film you just have to fight through in the hopes that he'll move off his love for grape picking & into something interesting again.

The plus side is, once you make it past the stagnation, the plot picks up again & you feel the sense of freedom having overcome the monotony of Kerouac. But on the other-hand, I'm fairly certain that's the point.

The bottom line is that if you are familiar with Travelin' Jack you know what to expect before you walk into the film & you walk out with an experience far better than you would have thought it's be. It's an enjoyable film.

However, if you're like most of the world & for some reason do not read, you'll be expecting the legend without understanding the reality & you will hate it, for no other reason than the lack of background necessary to expect Kerouac to be, well, Kerouac.

It's the late 1940s, and young writer Sal Paradise's father has just died. He hangs out with friends in bars and struggles with writers' block. But when he meets charismatic Dean, Sal decides to follow his new friend's lead and take to the road on a cross-country trip across America.

Let's start with the good, shall we? The supporting cast are excellent, and special mention should be given to Tom Sturridge. He plays Carlo (Allen Ginsberg's alter ego), who spends much of the film intensely brooding over his broken heart, his writing, his wild ambitions. A quiet scene in which he tries to articulate his feelings towards Dean is one of my favourite in the whole film. Elisabeth Moss and Amy Adams also have blink-and-you-miss-it supporting roles, and they both easily outshine their higher-billed co-stars.

Unfortunately, that's about all the praise I can muster.

We are informed, time and time again, that Dean is charismatic, charming, infectiously reckless and dangerous and sexy. Sal, Carlo and Marylou can't get enough of him. He makes their lives better, more complete, more exciting. And yet Hedlund, for whatever reason, completely fails to shine on the screen. Good looking, yes, but charming he is not.

Reading the film's trivia page, previous attempted adaptations of Kerouac's book had the likes of Marlon Brando and Brad Pitt in mind to play the role of Dean. It makes me disappointed, embarrassed and slightly angry that the film's producers, in their search for our generation's equivalent to Brando and Pitt, settled on Garrett Hedlund. Was there really no one else available? What about Aaron Taylor-Johnson? Or Sam Claflin? Or Miles Teller, maybe? Or anyone who actually manages to make beautiful lines of prose sound more exciting than the phonebook? Objections have also been raised about some of the other main cast members, but although none of them - with the exception of Sturridge - lit the screen alight, none of them ruined the film either.

But of course, this film was always going to disappoint. It was always going to disappoint because it was built on a shaky foundation. The film's underlying problem, the problem that was always going to be a problem even if everything else was perfect, was what the script isn't good enough.

Any film worth watching tells you what its characters want. It's a character's pursuit of his/her personal goal that drives the whole plot. There was no sense here that the characters wanted anything in particular. There was talk of writing, but only in passing, as a way to spark a conversation in between drags of a joint. The characters talked, and laughed, and drank, and danced and travelled. But none of it really mattered because, in the end, none of them really changed.

I'm aware, of course, that Kerouac's book is a much-loved piece of literature, which leads me to conclude that it must be much, much better than this film. If that's the case, then fine. Read the book. Love the book. But it's not enough to trust that an audience's love for a story told in one medium will necessarily transfer into a love for the story in a different medium. The film feels like it relies too heavily on people knowing - and liking - the characters of the book, and in doing so fails to deliver an adaptation worthy of its source material.

I give this film 3 out of 10 stars because I was extremely bored with the subject matter of the film. It felt like it would never ever end. It was a constant cacophony of meaningless conversations. I could not connect to any of the characters. The protagonist played by Riley was likable enough, but the whole ensemble felt like they lacked depth. Having never fully read the novel because I felt the same painful boredom from it, I'm not really sure if the characters are meant to have any depth or if they represent any particular archetypes. I can say I felt absolute nothing during my viewing of this film and it is a shame. I am a fan of Hedlund.

I loved the book enormously when i read it a couple years back. I shot through it in two days and just thought it was a fantastic read with an incredibly high energy feel to it. (Its almost like the reading equivalent of several cups of coffee) The film by contrast doesn't have any of that specific wired high energy feel to it, in fact i thought the film kind of saps some of the energy from the story by trying to place it all in the context of a story that has to have a beginning, middle, and end. I get that any adaptation of this was going to have to do some reconfiguring just because any movie is going to need to have a story with a clear through line for people who aren't familiar with the book to understand and that's OK, but at the same time it kind of takes away some of the amazing strength of the book. In fact it kind of reminded me of the Robert Redford 70's version of "the Great Gatsby" in that while faithfully recreating the scenes from the book, they kind of forgot to infuse the film with the lively energy that their source material had in spades! Enough about that tho because as a film "On The Road" is solidly enjoyable enough and pretty well made as a film that its hard not to like it in general. I did in fact watch virtually the entire movie with a huge smile on my face because i enjoyed in no small measure the staging of certain scenes from the book, as well as catching certain lines that i remembered vividly from the book but not until hearing them spoken in the film did i think about how great it was that the screenwriter and director thought to include them.

The film itself to me even gets better in retrospect because at first i didn't particularly like either Sam Rielley or Garret Hedlund as Sal or Dean. Thought they were both entirely miscast, but in truth as the film went on it was a lot easier to accept them as the characters if only because i think i had such a specific type in mind for both characters--Sal should have been less grizzled, more naive...and Dean should have been way more manic and charming instead of the fairly low key but very affable man. (i feel like maybe James Franco would've been a good choice for this cause he can definitely do both manic and depressed.) Even that i understand that you can't overdo Dean Moriarty because then you run the risk of going too far and having him not be believable as someone who could easily charm this entire group of people, but again as the film goes on, and the scenes go by--it becomes a lot easier to accept the two actors as Sal and Dean. I feel like that's actually true of the film as a whole too. It kind of starts out with a whole i don't know about this kind of vibe and it quickly wins you over because of the confident way the scenes from the book are put across. I really do feel like Walter Salles properly caught the spirit and underlying sadness of the book but didn't quite capture the mad passionate high energy level that makes the book such an intoxicating read. While that initially came to me as disappointment i got to admit that the film (much like the book its based on) grew on me as i was watching it, and if the film can't be exactly like the book, its at least a fair to solid enough interpretation of the book's characters and events that i can gladly accept and enjoy it on its own merits. (The fact that its also beautifully filmed and has a great accompanying soundtrack help enormously!)

"On The Road" is only the skeleton this film is fleshed out around. It is not simply the novel made into a movie. Director Walter Salles WAY expanded it. For starters, he used the scroll, not the '57 edition as the working blueprint. And a ton of the movie came from Neal, Jack & Allen's letters, Carolyn's book, the LuAnne interview, Jack's audio recordings … in other words, there's a lot of stuff that's not in the novel. But it's all based on accounts, not solely Jack's account as told in that one book, scroll or not.

It's not the novel On The Road as a linear film. It's an interpretation based strongly ON that novel, but it ain't a literal filming of the storyline. It's a work of art, its own work of art, a new work of art based on an old work of art.

There's lots of cool things about it. I don't want to "spoil" it for you, but many of the specific scenes in the novel that always stood out for me are in the film. And since it's so non-linear, you don't know what's coming next. And it's, "Oh wow! It's this scene! No way!" It's so funny-cool that way. Something that Jack might spend a few paragraphs on in a 300-page novel could be 3 minutes of the 137 minute movie. And things he might cover over 20 pages aren't included at all. It's kind of a series of choice scenes portrayed.

And the cameos by Terrence Howard and Steve Buscemi are to die for! That two of my favorite actors are in this in such weird and wonderful ways is just great.

And Viggo as Bill! Holy heck! Maybe the best part of the film.

And the music is GREAT. Yer gonna love it if ya love it.

There's loads of problems, big and small, but I'm not gonna mention 'em cuz maybe you won't even notice 'em. It's its own work of art, its own statement, its own piece. It's new and different and will stand (or fall) on its own. But the movie of "On The Road" now exists. And here it is — 2 hours and 17 minutes. It's more large than small. It's more new than old. It's more timeless than dated.

How this is gonna play for other people will be interesting to see.

There's gonna be the Beat world's reaction, and then the non-Beat world's. Beat people in general are gonna like it — cuz it's On The Road and so much more. People who have only read the one book and have it emblazoned in their brains may have trouble with how it's been expanded, or edited by the limitations of the medium. I have no idea how non-Beat-familiar people will respond. Not a clue. I think if you were predisposed this way, you'd already be there.

Oh, and there's a whole lotta sex in it. The things that are said and the things that are shown, for The Puritanical American Rating System, this is gonna be an "R" fer sure. I mean, there's hand-jobs, oral, gay, straight, three-ways, you name it — and f-bombs, which actually were not in the casual vernacular of the time the way they're used in this film, and certainly not in the novel. This is definitely an adult movie. Which, if you know your On The Road, was a very G-rated book, other than the subject — the sex is all off-page, and the language is clean. The movie — not so much.

I look forward to experiencing this many more times, under many different circumstances, in many different mindframes, with many different people, and how it'll continue to reveal new colors and angles with each new Road adventure. It's a memorable, expansive dramatization. It's a helluva party condensed into 2 hours. It's a road trip with old friends to familiar places. But you better leave the book at home and be ready for anything.

One of the aspects this film really lacked was an understanding of the zeitgeist of Beat America in the late forties and fifties of Post-World War Two America. The conservative middle class that Ronald Reagan defended was in full swing and there were those who did not fit in and did not know where to go, and this is where the Beats fit in. It was L seven heaven square land and people with creative vision didn't have the flavor for materialism. The idea in the mind was just as secure as house in the suburbs. Plus I saw no James Joycean stream of consciousness with the speed, booze and the jazz. Where was the poetry? You see people moving around, dancing, snapping fingers and being "hip" but no expression of what was going on within. The characters I saw were 21st century self-centered users, dopers, and boozers who could not afford a day of tasting wine in Napa Valley, so it's everyone else's fault. The most real character in the film that captures the sense of the time was Viggo Mortensen's Old Bull Lee/William S. Burroughs. That worked. Carlo Marx, the Ginsberg attempt should have been called Harpo Marx. I was howling at the idea that this was suppose to be the person that wrote Howl. The art direction and cinematography did keep me watching instead of leaving. But remember, it does say based on the book On The Road.

Watched at the Cannes Film Festival. For a young audience jaded and sick of a seemingly constant avalanche of super hero and action block buster no-brainer movies this film will shine like a refreshing breath of much desired escapism in times of depression and high unemployment. Though having made previously multi-awards winning films and having worked with some amazing actors in the past, Walter Salles finally has been allowed to work with some the hottest young Hollywood stars, this will surely really hit pay-dirt for him and open up his work to a whole new generation and market, with film enjoying a much wider release, transcending the usual art-house cinema's he has previously been limited to. The film will appeal both to the large demographic audience of teen film goers but also an older generation of book readers curious to see how one of the most inspirational novels of their teens turns out now that it has finally hit the screens over half a century since it's first release. The film seems part biopic as it departs often from the book, young audiences will easily connect and relate to mind-set of Kerouac as they are given insight into one of America's legendary free-spirits that pre-dated "Generation X" and the much earlier Easy Rider generation by decades. Whilst Kirsten Stewart will draw a large teen audience following for the Twilight Saga movie franchise, Riley for his stand-out award winning art-house performances, it will be the scenes of drug taking, sexual experimentation, visuals of haunting beautifully shots landscapes and a sense of escapism that will all have a massive teen audience appeal, but most memorable of all will be Garrett Hedlund star in the making, charismatic scene stealing performance that will be prominent in reviews, garner excellent word-of-mouth and leave an indelible mark.

Walter Salles's On The Road is so close to being incredible. Unfortunately, the few things that stand in its way are enough to leave a sour taste in my mouth. Firstly, this movie shows us a lot of debauchery without delving into the philosophy behind it. The Beats were all about the idea that there's this other America out there, this more visceral, more honest way to live besides the 9-to-5, wife-and-kids suburban existence. Granted, the quest for this "other, free, holy America" loses some of its profundity when the characters feel the need to be smashed out of their minds 24/7 to find it. But they were onto something more than just drunken banging and shoplifting.

The movie certainly delivers on conveying the Beats' lust for life, their sense of adventure. That feeling of excitement and ecstasy I get from the novel translates to the screen pretty well. Everything from the soundtrack to the lighting to the dirt under the actors' nails makes me wish I was there. Sam Riley is great at giving Sal some personality, which doesn't seem like it'd be the easiest thing to do. I was also surprised to find just how much I enjoyed the typically loathsome Kristen Stewart as Marylou. Tom Sturridge as Carlo is the crown jewel of the film for me; he's exactly how I imagine Ginsberg would have been at that age, and his lines and energy get the closest to the heart of what the beat generation was on about. Of course, the fact that one of the supporting characters carries the thing would imply that the lead was a sad, soul-crushing disappointment. And guess what!

In Kerouac's novel, Dean Moriarty is the embodiment of the Beat Generation - intensity, enthusiasm, humor, eccentricity. He squeezes every drop of joy and wisdom out of every experience in his life; there's profundity in every interaction he has. In the novel Dean is manic. Everything he says is an exclamation. Sal is in awe of his magnetism, his energy. He's almost other worldly. There's a force inside Dean so powerful that you think it's gonna explode up out of him any second. His spirit is the lynchpin of the entire story. This seemed to be completely lost on either Garrett Hedlund, or the casting director, neither of whom I assume bothered to read the book. Here, Dean is still speeding down the highway, drinking and rolling joints, talking about his "kicks"...but without any of the character's electricity. There's nothing special about Hedlund's Dean. He's just a caffeinated Sal. He's the center of the whole story, he's got great actors playing great characters all around him, and he's still an overwhelming letdown.

I don't recommend watching this before you read the book, lest it just seem like you're watching a bunch of losers getting drunk and jumping in and out of bed with each other. Mr. Hedlund seemed more interested in playing a rebellious rock star than a mesmerizing savant, and although he doesn't cause the ship to sink, it's definitely taking on water when it comes into port. Despite everyone else's best efforts, this only gets a 6 out of 10 for me.

The movie that got infamous because of Kristen Stewart being ... in it. And revealing part of her body, that only a select few people had seen. But it would be unfair to just watch and judge the movie by this fact. There are also other people who get their clothes off (though not Kirsten Dunst, so hold your horses). Actually do not get too excited in general, even if the movie does offer more nudity and sex acts, than I originally thought, this is not what the movie is all about.

It's about life, music and relationships in general. And of course the inability. To commit, to grow up and more things that adults are considered to actually do or be able to do. And it's also refreshing not to see Kristen sulking. So you might have to admit, that she might be able to act. Which unfortunately can not be said entirely about the man who's playing the main role here. It's not that he's bad, but he could neither convince me in this or some other movies I saw him in (13 with Jason Statham to name one). It's a shame, because his sidekick has more flavor (his role is more colorful too of course), but together something is missing, that would make this really original and magical

Walter Salles has made another beautiful, captivating, moving film. 'On The Road' is a close adaptation of Kerouac's famous novel which came to define the beat movement. Sticking to the fictional character names of Dean Moriarty and Sal Paradise (this feels historically faithful as these are the names used in the book up until a recent re-edition of the original text) we follow Sal's attempts to find 'it' in his travels across America, and through his relationships, and his attempts to write a meaningful work of art. Sam Riley is brilliant in the central role; natural, sympathetic, captivating. All the other actors are excellent. What is the real strength of this film is the unpretentious film-making which resists drawing attention to the wealth of talent involved in making it, is it perhaps the perfection of this film which has tempted reviewers to pick holes or invent flaws, like a true beauty it is sometimes hard for others to resist trying to destroy or defile it? Cinema magic is rare, shame people have trouble recognizing it when they have it in front of them.

This movie needed to be better. I hadn't read the book but I heard it was a very epic subject matter. It needed to be more meaningful though. Some of the quotes could have been done way better. "And I shamble after . . ." should have made me want to cry but it didn't. I got more emotion out of trailer than from that quote that it randomly put in the movie it seemed.

The main actors did fine. Kristen didn't stand out as bad or anything. None of them did amazing though. I feel like later down the line this whole movie could have done better. Maybe some one better to play Dean will come along? Don't get me wrong it wasn't terrible. It just could have been better. You'll know what I mean if you've the read book and then watch the movie I bet.

'ON THE ROAD': Four Stars (Out of Five)

Adaptation of Jack Kerouac's 1957 novel (of the same name) about his experiences traveling around the United States in the late 1940s, usually with his friend Neal Cassady. The film has gone through various development phases for multiple decades under different directors and different casts. It was finally directed by Brazilian director Walter Salles and written by Jose Rivera (the team also worked on the 2004 critically acclaimed film 'THE MOTORCYCLE DIARIES'). It was produced by Francis Ford Coppola and stars Sam Riley as Kerouac's alter ego Sal Paradise and Garrett Hedlund as his buddy Dean Moriarity (a representation of Cassady). It also features Kristen Stewart, Kirsten Dunst, Amy Adams, Tom Sturridge, Alice Braga, Elisabeth Moss, Terrence Howard, Steve Buscemi and Viggo Mortensen. The movie is a beautiful looking road film, that's pretty aimless in story but does have some somewhat fascinating characters.

The film begins in 1947 when writer Sal Paradise (Riley) meets Dean Moriarity (Hedlund). The two have many adventures together on various road trips over multiple years and Sal meets the many women in Dean's life, including Marylou (Stewart) and Camille (Dunst). Sal's life is forever changed by the wild and free-spirited young man and his lady friends. Other famous figures like William S. Burroughs and Allen Ginsberg are represented in the film as well.

Like a lot of road trip films the movie is completely aimless. We just kind of hitch a ride with Sal and Dean as they travel across the country having fun and exploring the world. There's of course not a lot to the story but the characters, for the most part, are likable and interesting. The cast is all impressive, especially the two leads, and the directing is decent. The film is probably highlighted by it's beautiful cinematography. Not a great film by any means but an entertaining one for the most part. Perhaps a little too long at almost two hours and twenty minutes though.

Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ4Gr6CX0-g

I enjoyed the imagery, I appreciated the attempt, but in all, I'm disappointed. I am unimpressed by the characters, and by the approach the director chose to take. I'm not sure if the majority of the people who have read the book or even heard Neal Cassady speak in footage remember him being an eccentric maniac who tweaked while speaking, never slowing until sleep forced him to shut down. When I see the laid back, reserved performance of Garret Hedlund, that is what really makes me sad (instead of being saddened by what the performance is supposed to show). I don't feel the magic that Cassady was known for giving off, nor do I feel any sort of insight or connection to Sal Paradise. I would say that the movie serves more as a visual aid to the book if it contained more content from the actual book.

I understand Salles was taking a biographical approach to capturing the essence of On the Road, as well as the beat scene of the time, rather than an attempt to transform the book into a film (which is what I was kind of expecting), but because of this, the movie wound up with too much content in too little time.

I agree with the earlier review ..."..our last chance to revisit it, even for a few hours, is taken away..." Yep. I read the book soon after its publication and, like the above reviewer, only remember the intensity, the poetry. My memory is that there was no real story line. But wonderful evocations of crossing the country in the old Hudson, at night...something about the feeling of being in that capsule. Just one of the many quibbles I have with this movie is that it showed us the Hudson speeding across the screen from left to right...an exterior view. Nothing of the romance of being in the car as it hurtled along. Lots of scenes of Dean driving dangerously, but that tells us something about Dean...that isn't what the book was saying about being in the car.

Okay. Anyway..anachronisms...

I graduated high school in 1957. I remember the hair cuts for girls...I was one of them. Marylou did not wear the cut shown in the movie. No long layers. Long hair , yes, but not long layers. That's very contemporary...It's distracting. Ever hear of "pin curls?"

Restaurant servers did not start saying "Enjoy" until at least the 90's. Remember the carefully recreated restaurant toward the end of the movie...the middle aged, somewhat overweight waitress in the red uniform? Never would she have said "enjoy."

I think some of the cars seen rushing from one side of the screen to the other in the early part of the movie were not available in the late 40's. Looked like Chevys from about 1953.

So much was carefully done...the paint peeling in the old Victorians when Victorians were low rent...yes! That very restaurant mentioned above.

Come on, there are lots of us still living. Hire a consultant next time.