DipitySkillful an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.

Numerootno A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

Patience Watson One of those movie experiences that is so good it makes you realize you've been grading everything else on a curve.

Tobias Burrows It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

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

pratikubba As someone that hasn't read the book before watching the movie, I though it was pretty good. Theres no other way of portraying relationships or friendships that existed in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Times were very different and the movie has a way of bringing you back to those days.

ken558 A movie is definitely in big trouble if the cameo roles (and there are many here) are way way more interesting than the movie is by a long shot. And yes, this movie is that movie.It has pretty good cinematography, very competent actors all round. Each minute if taken in itself could be part of a great movie … but string them all together all 143 minutes of it (and I saw the long version!) …. it becomes one pointless uninteresting movie.The many many sex scenes are unnecessary and pointless. It's the only movie that could make Kristen Stewart wanking off two guys, all three totally naked while speeding down the road … totally inconsequential and just plain contrived and boring.If this movie had come out when the characters it was based on were still fresh and hot … like in the 60s … it could have been of some interest. In the 21st century … it's passé. Seeing a bunch of unremarkable everyday deadbeats wasting their pointless life on pointless things … who cares. Deadbeats traveling around doing irresponsible selfish nonsensical things while simply backstabbing and laying waste to one another … just not interesting at all.But the worse of it is, it's really not about the material nor the time nor the premise. The main problem is really just mundane uninspired direction and scripting (though technically competent but not great). A movie like this needs to take on a very different inspired approach that would bring out the freshness and the meaning of these meaningless souls straying in the American landscape in the beat era (and not just come across as ordinary boring deadbeats who you'd rather not bother to know). But the opportunity was lost on the director and the scriptwriter who just did the technically competent 'tell it like it is' …. boring and uninteresting be damned. And well it is. In truly competent hands, this sort of movie could sparkle, especially with such a good cast and cameos. As it is, the cast efforts …. simply wasted.Quoting or mumbling poetry and having percussion jazz just doesn't cut it … just makes it come across as desperate, pretentious, uninspired. (Btw - the percussion jazz was nice, but out of place in this movie and comes across as misplaced and distracting) Truly, what a waste!

magicalmanhattan 1) The screenwriter did not understand the main characters of the book, especially Dean. He added poor quality dialogue. That dialogue was related to sexuality. At certain points in the film Dean described sex acts that he engaged in that were never mentioned in the book. He described them in a way that would have never come out of the character's mouth as Kerouac created him. This poor quality language destroyed the depth of the character within 60 or so seconds. The screenwriter put 90% of the focus on sex, and made a gay sex act happen, which never occurred in the book, apparently to get some gay sex on screen. He had Marylou give Dean and Sal hand jobs at the same time in the movie which never occurred in the book. The screenwriter took the shift off the very important things that "On the Road," is about. On the road is about America in the 1940's being a spiritual land of immense beauty and power. It is about how Sal, and even more so Dean were completely intoxicated by this spirituality and beauty. The story is about "it." One aspect of "it," was that Dean loved women very deeply and was crazy about them. The other aspect was to be intoxicated by every unusual character that Dean came across on the road. In the story Dean is wild, intoxicated on life, and grooving on the world including the people, the music, and his friend Sal all the time. This brings me to my second point.2) The actor that played Dean was not able to catch this constant intense spiritual jazzy American fever at all. Therefore nothing was accomplished.3) The book is really about this holy land of America. Sometimes there is an amazing tune that a songwriter needs to put words to, just so that the tune can get noticed. But the words are actually secondary. In a way Dean and Sal are almost secondary. They are a vehicle for traveling through every aspect of the mystical American landscape, its people, and its culture. The movie does not convey this most important aspect of "On the Road," effectively. To do so much more focus would have had to be put on people and places that Dean and Sal observe as they travel.To conclude, once again, "On the Road," is about American spirituality. A kind of spirituality that miraculously could have occasionally been found by the wild and free youth of the time. The film failed to capture this, possibly because the screen writer did not understand what this American spirituality is. He did not understand the essence of "On the Road."