Rijndri Load of rubbish!!

Dorathen Better Late Then Never

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Vonia On the Road (2012) Director: Walter Salles Watched: December 2017 5/10 Fun enough story, Aural and visual merit, "Only... the mad ones." Kristen Stewart's spirit shines, Though Hedlund's Dean steals the show. Performance aside, Dean's character frustrating, Distracted hating, Could not care for characters, Failed to capture Kerouac. Somonka is a form of poetry that is essentially two tanka poems (the 5-7-5-7-7 syllable format), the second stanza a response to the first. Traditionally, each is a love letter and it requires two authors, but sometimes a poet takes on two personas. My somonka will be a love/hate letter to this film? #Somonka #PoemReview

catesa 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.

Tweetienator I re-watched this movie lately and was (again) somehow disappointed - the movie felt over-stretched, somehow artificial and mostly I was just bored. As the cinematography and the cast are working well, also the nice jazz and the occasional recitation of Kerouac's words fitted well, I wondered why I can't enjoy this movie more.Imo this movie got one main problem - On The Road is imo mainly a work of poetry, relying on the power of words, the emotions and pictures it evokes in the reader. Second, I think this movie should have been made in the 60s or 70s, now in times of Youporn, legalization of weed in the U.S. etc. etc. all these guys boozing, making free love etc. are not looking like rebels or avant-garde but low-life junkies. Also, literature nowadays is mainly entertainment, there are no real ground-shaking writers like Henry Miller, Kerouac, Sartre, Kafka etc. anymore. Today people read Harry Potter, Twilight etc. Literature in the beginning and in the mid of the past century was important to society, like HipHop to the 90s, nowadays it is mostly just business and giving some entertainment to the masses in their leisure time. Also jazz today just don't work as an expression of rebellion, in times where even bands like Sonic Youth are mainstream, and certain black metal artists cooperate with classical orchestras. For me, I am no lover of jazz or have any interest in it, the music sounds mostly like music for the elevator or some background noise for shopping in a hipster store. The book, the words of Keroauc I would recommend to everybody to read, but if you want to watch some aimless guys and gals boozing and drugging themselves to death, watch the semi-autobiography of Charles Bukowski called Barfly from 1987 with Mickey Rourke and Faye Dunaway - it is much more powerful and much more honest as the adaption of On The Road on the screen is. Booze, drugs, sex - in the 50s the Beat generation was the predecessor of the Love & Peace movement, as the movie does not give us any "feel" of that rebellion and conflict against the rigid rules at those times where the book was written (e.g. the separation of the races), this movie is mostly redundant.

a-c-kashtanov I would give this title a 1, but the art direction and photography were in tone with the story (artsy lifestyle with lots of natural stuff, connection with the world).The rest is just garbage. The director framed the story in the vague drama stuff that was present in the book from time to time and cut out all the joy, the adventure, the thirst of the characters to know and feel the world, the freedom of young souls in 50's America.Vigo was the only one that fitted the book, the rest's just a lot of junkies with some deep trauma and lust for escaping something of their past. If you liked the book, pass on this one. You will only waste 2 hours of your life. But if you want to experience something like when you were reading the book, give a try to Into the Wild and ShortBus (the book was like a mix of them)