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.

gavin6942 Young writer Sal Paradise has his life shaken by the arrival of free-spirited Dean Moriarty and his girl, Marylou (Kristen Stewart). As they travel across the country, they encounter a mix of people who each impact their journey indelibly.Apparently, Kristen Stewart is now an adult. Following her rise to stardom with "Twilight", she could have been stuck doing some silly movies. Box office numbers were big, but critics largely panned the franchise. Then this comes along...Of course, among the right people, "On the Road" is a classic. I am surprised that James Franco did not force himself into the starring role.

paul2001sw-1 In the modern age, time spent travelling and living hedonistically has become part of our standard rite of passage. But when Jack Karouac set off on his voyage across America in the immediate post-war years, he was doing something altogether more dangerous, more exciting; and his fictionalised autobiography, 'On the Road', provided an inspiration to the world that followed him. Walter Salles made a great film about another young man who goes out travelling ('The Motorcycle Diaries', his portrayal of the youth of Che Guevera), but his version of 'On the Road' lacks the same impact. Partly, there's the purposelessness to the story, which the film dodges, not entirely successfully, with the suggestion that the life lived was validated by the fact that it was subsequently written about. Secondly, it seems that at least one idea that's supposed to be animating the plot is the character of Dean Moriaty, inspirational and yet out of control, but Dean, as portrayed in this film, simply comes across as a good-looking jerk. Indeed, all the characters seem a little too good-looking for literally penniless men who've spent whatever little they have had on booze and drugs; and the homosexual element, that was a major subtext in the lives of many of the beat poets, is not absent but is downplayed. Ultimately, the film paints a picture of life on the road, but doesn't make it very interesting. This is "beat" as in "beats a day job", but not much more.

grantss I had low expectations for this movie: I didn't like the book that much and it stars the talentless Kristen Stewart. Turns out it wasn't as bad as I expected, though it's still not good. Like the book it just seems to ramble on and on, without any point. However, the individual ramblings do have more coherence here than in the book. Plus, the final scene does tie it all together rather well. (I felt the book left things up in the air). Still, it is overly long, and feels longer.Good performances by Garrett Hedlund and Sam Riley in the lead roles. Generally good support, from a cast that includes Kirsten Dunst, Amy Adams, Viggo Mortensen, Steve Buscemi and Elizabeth Moss.Thankfully, Kristen Stewart doesn't ruin the movie too much, through her role being quite limited in terms of screen time and depth required. All she had to do was rock up, say a total of about three lines, do a dance, get her kit off a few times and have a few basic love scenes. Even she should be able to do that without screwing up the movie. It's anything involving dialogue, facial expressions and emotional depth and breadth where she struggles...