A Masterpiece!

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.