I would have preferred that they focused on Dean, Sal, and their communication and search for "It" Loads of fat they could have trimmed from this film. The film fails to pull back any layers to the point that we cannot even reach the meat and bones. It is my understanding the film-makers here went for the story more along the lines of the actual individuals and not quite so much the characters representing them in the book. I personally feel that this may have undercut any possibility this film had to reach any level of the fantastical, perhaps, mystical. I think the actors, aside from fellow that plays Sal, have no sense of being beat or poor and therefore have much less to give their roles. I believe Sam Riley actually struggled as an artist for many years before finding any main stream success. But even then, the way Sal is written, he does not take part in much and only observes. Making a film and finishing it is an accomplishment. Much more so a film of this nature which is asked to flesh out the book and make it larger than life on screen. So, with that in mind, I think its only fair to give this film at least a 6. They fell but didn't fail to reach. And that is to be commended.

Young writer Sal Paradise has his life shaken by the arrival of free- spirited Dean Moriarty and his girl, Marylou. As they travel across the country, they encounter a mix of people who each impact their journey indelibly. This was a movie i was waiting a whole summer to see and when i saw it i was disappointed a lot of sex scenes, great actors playing stupid characters and it's sad cause my biggest problem with the whole film was Dean himself (Garrett Hedlund) he was a poor character and he even banged a guy to take his car i mean what the hell? Marylou was the only interesting character as for everyone else? mostly a miss and not a hit.

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."

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.