Photo: Sundance Selects
Well made but otherwise empty, On the Road manages to capture late-'40s America in a feature centered on cross-country travel, smoking cigarettes, sex, drugs, drinking and stealing gas and food, but as a narrative it has little to nothing to say. The tedious result of this adaptation of Jack Kerouac's famed novel is, however, unfortunate considering Eric Gautier's rich, smoke-filled cinematography, Walter Salles's direction and stand-out performances from most of the cast. All that said, I was able to find my own interpretation of the material that managed to slightly elevate my overall opinion, but that's hardly a saving grace.
Review
"On the Road" is a Sundance Selects release, directed by Walter Salles and is rated R for strong sexual content, drug use and language.
The cast includes Garrett Hedlund, Sam Riley, Kristen Stewart, Kirsten Dunst, Viggo Mortensen, Amy Adams, Elisabeth Moss, Alice Braga, Tom Sturridge, Terrence Howard and Steve Buscemi.
For more information on this film including pictures, trailers and a detailed synopsis click here.
-
Watch Trailer
Beginning in 1947, we're introduced to Sal Paradise (Sam Riley), a writer who can't find anything to say. The words won't come, but inspiration comes knocking as he and his writer friend Carlo Marx (Tom Sturridge) settle in for a night with Dean Moriarty (Garrett Hedlund) and his new 16-year-old wife Marylou (Kristen Stewart).
First impressions are everything as free-spirited Dean answers the door naked (something he'll do at least two more times over the film's two hour plus duration) with Marylou naked on the bed behind him. The night turns into weeks, months and years of on-again/off-again partying, travel and various forms of public debauchery.
From New York to Lousiana to California to Nebraska, we follow the separate and together travels of Dean and Sal all across the country as they are joined by friends, family and new acquaintances at every turn. Problem is, none of this seems to do anything more than present a new vignettes to pile into a story that isn't going anywhere.
Take for example Sal's solo trip to California where he meets Terry (Alice Braga), a young single mother whom he has a brief affair with while working the cotton fields. Eventually he heads back to New York, leaving her behind and her part of the story complete. Why was this necessary? Beyond that, in their travels, why is it necessary to see them continually stealing food from roadside gas stations and quoting the same Harry Truman line? "We must cut down on the cost of living." I got it the first time.
These characters are all clearly lost, looking for something and not finding it and I struggle to say they ever will. That is, until I began trying to find some interpretation of what was on screen and come away with something to say.
On the Road is narrated by Paradise's character, trying to put his story to paper, telling the story we're watching on screen. My interpretation is to consider Sal, Dean and Carlo as three separate personalities of the same person. Sal being the more responsible, loving and caring type, Dean being the wild man and Carlo as the jealous onlooker striving for both attention and greatness. Each of us has some aspect of these personalities in us even if we don't act on them and from what I could gather the story being told here is the narrator's -- Sal in this case -- exploring these separate personalities within him and telling the resulting story.
Clues such as a photograph torn in two and later pieced back together and a Mexican dance sequence, which almost edits Dean and Sal together as if they are having intercourse, led me to believe they have either become, or actually are, the same person.
The ending presents an image of Sal, grown out of his wild and jealous ways, leaving those parts of his life behind him for a "normal" life, something Marylou hinted at earlier in the film. He found an outlet for his demons in his writing and that allowed him to find peace and normalcy in life.
As someone that has never read Kerouac's novel, and fully realizing my interpretation of the material is not the fact of the matter, reading into what was on screen in this way does give me a greater appreciation for what I saw as opposed to interpreting it as a straightforward narrative. Because as a straightforward narrative it just doesn't work.
In terms of the performances, there really isn't a bad one to be found. Sam Riley is the observer in most of this film, sitting back smiling, taking it all in and writing down his adventures in his many notepads until he occasionally gives in to temptation and the moment. Garrett Hedlund is the best I've seen him and Kristen Stewart turns in a brave performance in what comes across as her bold journey beyond the dull and lifeless character she portrays in the Twilight movies.
I don't think I've ever seen Stewart smile this much or as happy as Marylou was, naked giving both Dean and Sal a hand job in the front seat of Dean's '49 Hudson as it speeds down the road… Again, another example of how I interpret both men as one and it won't be Sal's last sexual encounter with Marylou as the evidence continues to pile up.
Along the way we're joined by Kirsten Dunst, Viggo Mortensen, Amy Adams, Elisabeth Moss, Terrence Howard and Steve Buscemi, all adding various levels of love, drugs, jazz and sex to the mix, but none really adding much to the story.
Overall, this just isn't a very good movie. It's repetitive and tedious, one scene after another barely distinguishing itself from the last. As beautiful as it all looks and as well-acted as it is, the only way I was able to find much interest in it was to create my own interpretation of what it was trying to say and even then I don't really need to explore that any further either.
'All is Lost' (2013) Movie Review - Cannes Film Festival
'Only God Forgives' (2013) Movie Review - Cannes Film Festival
'Before Midnight' Location Map - Celine and Jesse Vacation in Greece
First Clip from Cannes Hit 'All is Lost'
Trailer for Joseph Gordon-Levitt's 'Don Jon'
I'm 41 and I've Loved Only You
'The Bastards' (2013) Movie Review - Cannes Film Festival
'The Last Days on Mars' (2013) Movie Review - Cannes Film Festival
'Behind the Candelabra' (2013) Movie Review - Cannes Film Festival
you probably never read the book, so that's why you didn't understand the cluster of characters. I felt it was faithful to the story, so the support characters aren't useless.
I said I never read the book. A film shouldn't depend on the source material though.
You are correct, Brad, a film should not depend on it's source material... However, that argument doesn't work when you factor in the thousands upon thousands of people who get upset when movies are not faithful to the book. And from reading your discription... it appears this seems to be a very faithful adaptation. Your interpretation isn't too far off though, as the characters in the book are all based on real people and the adventures are all based on real events. Kerouac based most of books on real events that happened to him and his friends... They are all amalgams of autobiography and fiction. On The Road, the three characters are at once very different people and also Kerouacs vision of how he sees himself and that internal struggle of wanting to be who you are and who you are not... And the fact that you say the characters they meet along the way don't do much for the story; they really are just meant to be colorful interactions meant to portray the randomness of life... Good review, as usual, Brad... I'm still very much looking forward to this movie as it is one of my favorite books... If you get the chance, pick up the book, it's a quick read and worthwhile...
It's on my list with so many others... I am terrible when it comes to making time to read.
Of course a movie has to depend on the source material. No adaptation is 100% true to a book which is fine and understandable, but why on earth would you even make a movie if it doesn't have the bulk of the story based on the book in question? That makes no sense.
Coming from a director as fine-tuned with his themes as Salles, this sure is disappointing.
I'll rent it
From what I understand, Kstew goes topless in this one. Sounds like a film I'll definitely have to fast forward through...
I just finished reading the book!. The story itself chronicles this “cross-country travel, smoking cigarettes, sex, drugs, drinking and stealing gas and food, but as a narrative it has little to nothing to say.” The characters are all over the place, looking for something that they know, or they don’t really care, but at the same time, they care about, without knowing how to express and achieve. They are so lost!!!! I did not like the story itself, because it does not offer anything, but I loved the characters....their love for life, their fears, their frustration, their fight for what they don’t know what they really want to!!!. I have not seen the film, but for what U said: “Overall, this just isn't a very good movie. It's repetitive and tedious, one scene after another barely distinguishing itself from the last.” I had the same feeling reading the book....and it seems that Walter Salles’ translation of Jack Kerouac’s novel is too faithful to its original source. However, I can’t wait to see it because I really love the characters!!!!
It has been the same for me too. I kept reading the book because the characters were addictive and the more I came to know about them the better. But after 2/3 of the book I couldn't really stand to finish it. The story seemed to go nowhere and got boring.
Maybe the best way to approach the movie, if it is so loyal to the book, is to watch it without really expect anything from the story. Just enjoy its atmosphere and its characters.
Brad, you mentioned it was well-acted. Any stand out performances?
Not really, nothing putting one over another I'd say.
I see. But what i was looking for was were the main actors any good? Was Hedlund convincing as Dean Moriarty? Riley as Paradise?
And could Hedlund be eligable for Oscar consideration?
They were all just fine, I haven't read the book so have no basis for judgment by comparison if that's what you're wondering.
This is just one review but an appreciated one. I agree it's always been a hard call when it's a book adaptation. You are going to have the ones who feel they took to many liberties (mainly for scenes that may not translate well into film) and those who feel it's so close to the book that it was too much of a slow burn with little involvement or excitement. I believe this being a very character driven movie will be a continuous split with critics and movie goers alike.. It's one of those "depends on the mood you're in and what you're expecting going in" that will determine your opinion..
Is Kristen Stewart the ONLY actress in Hollywood these days. She's not really that great in my humble opinion. Any more overkill and she'll be selling Progressive Insurance.
To be honest, I'm not much of a fan either, but this was the first time she seemed to really be enjoying doing her work and it was a good performance.
In the title photo, what's that weird thing on Kristen Stewart's face?
You shoulrd have read the book, so you would know what is the material he has to work with. The fact that you don´t know it weakens your analysis so much. What otherwise could be some interesting reflexions turn into a string of opinions which don´t make much sense. Try reading the book next time
No, a movie should exist on its own. What a ridiculous comment.