When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

The acting in this movie is really good.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Most of the comments are right on point: the cinematography, set design, costuming, and recreation of California of the thirties are wonderful; Hayek is beautiful and Farrell good-looking. The problem with the movie is that not just the plot but also the script is true to its period. The dialogue and spoken narration are from the thirties -- the overwritten, wordy, Broadway-influenced, "literary" scripts of Clifford Odets, Robert Sherwood, Eugene O'Neill, and so on. Towne has an excuse for part of Ask the Dust's script, since he's writing about a writer who's obsessed with and intoxicated by his own words, but the style spills over into the rest of the script. A talky, "literary" movie can have its own charms for sympathetic viewers, but most of the audience will dismiss it as stagy and pretentious.

I don't know why most IMDb reviews tend to say every movie is garbage. Ask the Dust was not one of them. It is excellent! It is very funny at some parts and it has great performances from Salma, Colin and Idina above all. It is full of passion, spirit and logical things. The script is a very good one. Everything they said made sense and was very intelligent. I personally enjoyed very much the discussion scenes between Colin and Salma. They were awesome! This picture deserved much more support and more objective comments! The book might be better than the film, but still, this film is very romantic and passionate. It has those moments where human nature and romance comes into play, I love them. Salma and Colin fit for those roles perfectly. Anyone else suggesting other actors are ignorant fans of their own actors. Movie worth seeing. But if you are another IMDb critic, who doesn't know how to appreciate a good movie, then ...

Although this film started slow, as a love story it was alright. As an adaption of the Fante novel I would give the film a 5.0.I think DiCaprio would have played a better Bandini. Maybe it was just my impression of the character when reading the book, but I didn't see him as how Farrell portrayed him, laid back. I saw the great Bandini as full of passion, which Ferrell did not seem to have in this film -- or for the role of Alexandre for that matter. And how old is Farrell? Not 21 -- so maybe a younger actor would have been a better choice. Hayek did well, she is a natural beauty and played the Camilla character they way I imagined her, with strength, charm and humility.I liked the LA scenery very much, the feel, the sand grains "from the Mojave" brought Ask The Dust alive, although -- and I've never seen 1939 LA -- the set did seem kind of sparse.One thing I did not like too much was the script, using as a base of comparison the novel. It too seemed to lack a certain flare, charm or passion.To sum up my impression of the film as an adaptation was Sutherland as Hellfrick. He did it very well and had whatever was lacking -- which, however, from his small part was not enough to compensate for the rest.I say if you're looking for entertainment, read the book; if you're looking for a love story, rent something else. If you've read the book, watch it and decide for yourself.

The movie has the hallmark of old American writings, with lots of metaphors and big words for showing what is really everyday life. The script is original, unlike most of the films today, because is based on a book about the depression era in the US. The actors play very well and the images are very well done. I would venture to say the soundtrack was equally flawless, since it didn't bother me one bit (didn't really notice it, either).So what was wrong about the movie? I don't know. Maybe the pace, since it was two hours long. Or the subject, which was ... smooth. I mean, there were no real bumps in it. Everything just went by itself. In the tradition of "road writers" the character is almost an observer, left to his own emotions, but incapable of acting. I can't say that characters weren't original, but more in the direction of weirdly annoying rather than interesting.Bottom line: it's a drama. The romance itself is strong, not the diluted stuff you see nowadays, but I wouldn't call this a romantic movie. I suggest watching it when you feel philosophical or want something new, yet slow paced.