I live in Denver and recently attended a speech at a local library on the history of Denver. During his talk the speaker mentioned how pivotal Denver was to the classic book "On the Road" and mentioned streets and places here in town that were in the classic book. Well, that got me psyched to read the novel! But alas -- and sorry to all the Kerouac fans out there -- to me the book was a chore to get through. It's essentially the 'story' of a bunch of self-absorbed quasi-intellectual bi-sexual drug addicts, all of whom have obvious Daddy-issues, thieving their way back and forth across the North American continent with no apparent reason other than confusion and boredom. True, there were some sequences in the novel that flowed masterfully and were memorably realized, but overall I got tired of the repetitive and pointless nature of their trip to find "IT" and really only enjoyed it as a travelogue. I found the book much more interesting to see how much has changed economically and physically in America over the decades since it was written than any social/sexual/political/religious commentary Jack tried to get across (i.e. it only took $3 of gas to get from Bakersfield to San Francisco; a poverty-stricken Dean lived in a house on Russian Hill which is now probably worth millions; etc).
Anyway, after reading the book I became very interested in the real-life guys and spent weeks Googling their photos, watching on old videos, and reading as many of their biographies as possible. So when I learned there was a recent movie version with an all-star cast, I again got psyched -- if just to compare it to the book. But the movie was even more boring and depressing than the source material!
Kudos to the set direction which was entirely believable for the 1940's/1950's era it took place in, but the acting and the characters were one-dimensional, cartoonish, and not believable in the slightest, especially Sal/Jack and Carlo/Allen. I will say there are certain moments Garrett Hedlund has spot-on facial appearance and mannerisms of the real Neal Cassady (Dean). However, in the book Dean comes across as maniacal and hyper-excited to do ANYTHING AS FAST AS POSSIBLE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CONSEQUENCES TO HIMSELF OR ANYONE AROUND HIM (breathlessly). Yet in the movie he comes across as rather sullen, stilted, mopey, almost forcing himself to be the impetus of anything.
Pretty much every character in this movie comes across that way -- the opposite of how you think they must have been in real life, even down to their hair.
For instance in the novel, during the cotton-picking sequence, Jack hardly picks any cotton at all because he is so content and relaxed while 'working' -- content with himself, his new girl Terry, and the whole migrant Californian environment. But in the movie version Jack picks just as much cotton as the migrants and seems angry and put-upon by everyone around him.
Viggo does a very memorable turn as William S. Burroughs and has his voice and mannerisms down well. The scene of him cradling his baby while unconscious on heroin gives chills, as does Amy Adams' scary turn as his drugged-out wife (who he would later shoot and kill in real life!). But the movie has them living in a large plantation house with acreage -- not the squalid shanty these two drug addicts truly lived at in over-crowded Algiers.
True, you'd have to have read the novel to notice all the 'artistic license' changes made by the filmmakers, but even if you didn't know you'd still be bored to tears and could completely care less what happened to these guys, or give any kind of hoot to know why they were doing what they were doing.
Anyway, after reading the book I became very interested in the real-life guys and spent weeks Googling their photos, watching on old videos, and reading as many of their biographies as possible. So when I learned there was a recent movie version with an all-star cast, I again got psyched -- if just to compare it to the book. But the movie was even more boring and depressing than the source material!
Kudos to the set direction which was entirely believable for the 1940's/1950's era it took place in, but the acting and the characters were one-dimensional, cartoonish, and not believable in the slightest, especially Sal/Jack and Carlo/Allen. I will say there are certain moments Garrett Hedlund has spot-on facial appearance and mannerisms of the real Neal Cassady (Dean). However, in the book Dean comes across as maniacal and hyper-excited to do ANYTHING AS FAST AS POSSIBLE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CONSEQUENCES TO HIMSELF OR ANYONE AROUND HIM (breathlessly). Yet in the movie he comes across as rather sullen, stilted, mopey, almost forcing himself to be the impetus of anything.
Pretty much every character in this movie comes across that way -- the opposite of how you think they must have been in real life, even down to their hair.
For instance in the novel, during the cotton-picking sequence, Jack hardly picks any cotton at all because he is so content and relaxed while 'working' -- content with himself, his new girl Terry, and the whole migrant Californian environment. But in the movie version Jack picks just as much cotton as the migrants and seems angry and put-upon by everyone around him.
Viggo does a very memorable turn as William S. Burroughs and has his voice and mannerisms down well. The scene of him cradling his baby while unconscious on heroin gives chills, as does Amy Adams' scary turn as his drugged-out wife (who he would later shoot and kill in real life!). But the movie has them living in a large plantation house with acreage -- not the squalid shanty these two drug addicts truly lived at in over-crowded Algiers.
True, you'd have to have read the novel to notice all the 'artistic license' changes made by the filmmakers, but even if you didn't know you'd still be bored to tears and could completely care less what happened to these guys, or give any kind of hoot to know why they were doing what they were doing.