On the Road (2012) - Adventure, Drama, Romance

Hohum Score



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.

IMDB: 6.1
Director: Walter Salles
Stars: Sam Riley, Garrett Hedlund
Length: 124 Minutes
PG Rating: R
Reviews: 40 out of 139 found boring (28.77%)

One-line Reviews (129)

Nonetheless, the films is a little difficult to follow due to his prolongation in some adventures of the two men.

The narrative for this story can be somewhat confusing due to the transitions between scenes which cover various periods of time and the way in which the film focuses on such a variety of characters that you often never get the chance to truly appreciate the acting prowess of actors such as Terrence Howard, Viggo Mortenson, Steve Buscemi or Alice Braga (City of God), all of which have only short cameos.

Enough about that tho because as a film "On The Road" is solidly enjoyable enough and pretty well made as a film that its hard not to like it in general.

Yes i know this movie is based on a classic novel and blah blah blah but this movie is trash, the characters are all old school hipsters who are all unlike-able people, the movie had no plot or any kind of story line that can keep you gripped or even to wonder whats gonna happen next all you get are these weirdo characters drinking booze and having weirdo man hugs as they roll around the apartment stoned in old school new york i mean who acts like this?.

"On the Road" is a boring and uninteresting journey of sex and drugs.

It was just boring all the way through.

Sal at least knew his life was empty.

The road trips are uneventful, vague and meaningless.

it becomes one pointless uninteresting movie.

One of the most unexpected surprises was the performance of British actor Tom Sturridge, almost unrecognizable as a free-spirited American poet seeking his sexual identity.

time seems dull, and then they go their separate ways for no apparent reason.

In all fairness I'm not going to ask for my whole two hours back, because with the complicity of the script, I was able to doze off at least 5 times.

It's a slow, monotonous and frankly boring 'road trip' filled with pointless dialogue, drug and alcohol abuse and some thoroughly unlikeable characters.

While many of the actors played really relatable people and generally left strong impressions, the actors portraying Sal and Cassady were very bland.

I just came back from seeing this at the 30th Munich Film Festival and it was a gripping film from beginning to end with luscious cinematography and engaging major characters.

You will only waste 2 hours of your life.

The spirit of the book is completely gone: a boring movie.

The movie is a beautiful looking road film, that's pretty aimless in story but does have some somewhat fascinating characters.

So, I don't know yet if this was based on a true story, but if it was, what a boring life this guy led, despite all his journeys.

Just the stupid, empty lives of some uninteresting and superficial people.

I understand that it is in many ways a period piece and statement about a certain culture but I found this film to ultimately be a waste of time and money.

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.

that said, they did a wonderful job of making something lovable to the reader as well as entertaining to a viewer with no previous knowledge.

It is so boring that I really wanted to get up and leave in the middle of the movie.

I found it boring.

Car journeys are boring, so is this.

What a waste of time.

It's pointless.

A wild and exciting adventure that is tempered by the lesson, for the reader, at the end.

Pointless and unrewarding for the viewer .

Pointless adaptation .

This time it goes on for two hours and twenty minutes, but the beatniks seldom had any dull moments, did they?

The former (Sal)is portrayed as a boring voyeur, who is outclassed in the personality department by his own typewriter.

The result is a fascinating and punctual film that very well describes the heart and soul of the beat generation and the emotional journey of Sal Paradise-Jack Kerouac(Sam Riley) and the decisive meeting with the free-spirited and deeply chaotic Dean Moriarty-Neal Cassidy (Garret Hedlund) with his wife Marylou (Kristen Stewart),whom he had a very troubled relationship.

It's an enjoyable film.

If at times the film seems meandering, disjointed, or focused on conveying a general feeling rather than on moving the plot forward (i.

In the movie, the events lack its entertaining ability after a while and become annoying.

As empty as Dean's life was, he had this magnetic energy which at least made the film entertaining at times.

Or anyone who actually manages to make beautiful lines of prose sound more exciting than the phonebook?

The compelling parts of the story had to do with the way Sal saw these events and related them to us.

Any film worth watching tells you what its characters want.

His performance is both breathtaking and heartbreaking.

yes there are great landscapes, the photography is nice and the actors surely are OK, the music is often inspiring, but even if the movie basically tells the same events as in the book, I found it pretty boring, and above all the spirit of the book, about freedom etc, was completely gone.

This film follows young artists driving around North America in the 1950's, doing drugs, engaging in questionable sexual relationships and exploring themselves and the world with great enthusiasm.

You can create a boring matter-of-fact description of everything that happens in the book.

Quoting or mumbling poetry and having percussion jazz just doesn't cut it … just makes it come across as desperate, pretentious, uninspired.

Although the reason for my issues with this film is its unrealisticness, the reason that I hated the film was because it had no plot.

The film's fixation with homosexuality is a totally contrived element ( apparently the screenwriter's fantasy ) , and has no place in the novel .

Bored here in Mexico, I finally watched it and it confirmed my worse fears.

Fascinating, absorbing, filthy, loving and ..weedy. The amount of weed smoked in the movie is massive.

The mix of jazz, narration and literary excerpts made for a thrilling soundtrack.

It's just boring throughout a lot of it.

Hemingway was terrified of being boring.

If that somebody happens to misunderstand or filter the information differently you get "On The Road", a slide show of cigarette butts put out in a pretentious, diluted and hollow account of who cares.

Once the crew hits the road, the viewer is treated to the occasional breathtaking shot of the American west in all its then-pristine pre-suburban glory.

Here is your challenge, try and stay awake and interested throughout the whole film!

Simply Uninteresting .

For the members of Kerouac's (Sal Paradise's) group, life is controlled self-destruction because death is preferable to boredom.

It's just messy, disjointed, sloppy.

Little slow and strange.

The story line is dull and dreary, the character development is slow, uninteresting, unrealistic and depressing.

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.

The Movie is a Bland, Uninteresting, Rendition of a Sparkling, Wind-Mill Tilting, Book that was a Stream-of-Consciousness Rant that blurred the Lines between Poetry and Prose.

I re-watched this movie lately and was (again) somehow disappointed - the movie felt over-stretched, somehow artificial and mostly I was just bored.

What a pretentious film!

If I had seen this film alone I would have walked out after the first 30 minutes, the subject matter was just not something that I care to see or can relate to.

Gripping but a bit difficult to follow at times without having read the book.

Has its moments but is basically tedious, lifeless, and overly long .


While Garrett Hedlund's character (Dean Moriarty) appealed to and intrigued me, and his performance was outstanding, he would not have shined as he did without the other lead and supporting cast, who were all totally engaging.

They tried, it's very long, tedious, and you don't understand half of what's going on if you haven't read it.

And fascinating that it is based on the real story - the book which is in the same league as Williams S Burroughs, who's character also appear in the movie.

It only disappoints because a story that was really designed to startle the viewer out of their stupor instead lulls the modern audience into a state of nostalgia...

I fell asleep.

I wanted the ending to captivate me or strike me, but I just found it dull.

On the Road is definitely worth a watch but keep in mind that the pace can be slow at times and the film is definitely not for those who are not fans of films from this period.

Painfully boring .

Obviously, 'On The Road' is a very difficult book to turn into a film: it's disjointed, psychological/ philosophical/pseudo-religious, thin on linear plot, and very much rooted in Kerouac's own voice.

It was self indulgent, pretentious and had no idea what its own reason for existence was.

He makes their lives better, more complete, more exciting.

Hedlund is an absolute standout and is both riveting and heartbreaking, notably so at the end of the movie.

this Dean was a slow moving, slow talking, brooding bore...

But after a few blunts and pina coladas too many, turning off the volume, and falling asleep within the first 10 minutes, Brenda and I actually enjoyed it.

Ginsberg (Carlo) is a pretentious knob who thinks his emerging homosexuality is so groundbreaking it would make the second coming a yawn-fest.

The feeling when leaving the movie theater after watching this is one of unbearable emptiness.

I could appreciate the sense of freedom and endless opportunities, and the effect this must have had on the generation of the fifties and sixties, but I also found the story tedious after the first few chapters.

It was to hard to follow, to hard to understand, and just....

boring and uninteresting be damned.

So they threw about 25 sitting in front of the typewriter sipping whiskey scenes in, about 100 smoking expertly squinting while contemplating the endless mystery of the road and then nothing happens scenes, and some nudity, of course.

If you just summarized "On the Road" it would seem very boring....

But remember, this came at a time when society was absolutely saturated with the message that everyone should be "normal," safe, predictable.

Having never fully read the novel because I felt the same painful boredom from it, I'm not really sure if the characters are meant to have any depth or if they represent any particular archetypes.

Dull as dishwater with very uninteresting characters, I couldn't finish it .

It's well produced and the acting is fine, but the storyline is completely uninteresting and the characters one dimensional.

Any fan of On the Road, Jack Kerouac or the Beat writers should watch it though; its enjoyable.

There are many road trip films out there to choose from, just don't waste your time watching this one.

But this film is horribly boring with one and the same things and situations being repeated again and again.

The movie is extremely slow and yawn-inspirational.

The film seems to focus on the melodramatic, miserable aspects of the characters lives at the destinations they travel to, but fails to contrast this with wild and exciting times spent on the road.

The film just felt slow and rushed going through so much plot with not enough time to show us everything we needed to see.

Boring and Uninteresting Journey of Sex and Drugs .

Incredibly boring and not so amazing as the book.

The whole point of adventure films, especially road trips, is that they're supposed to be fun and entertaining to watch.

There is one comment on the message board made by gadjoproject which I find extremely compelling.

The translation to screen is very flat and dull.

It fails as a story, because it picks up from nowhere, follows a bunch of characters we never really get to care about, and ends suddenly after a long, pointless adventure.

The language used by the protagonists is equally pretentious.

Many of the places seen through the eyes of the novel's protagonist come alive and look stunning.

The many many sex scenes are unnecessary and pointless.

Now, about the movie itself: it's boring.

Everything is so boring that, although each character has a strong image and existence, following each one is a painful ordeal.

Even the jokes are primitive and predictable.

Since I didn't read – nor ever plan to – the source material, maybe the book's just as bland, repetitive and aimless as the motion picture.

So someone who found the ground-breaking, genre shifting, life changing, earth shattering original novel 'uninteresting' didn't enjoy the film and wanted the story to be changed?

Life would speed up with drugs and alcohol, slow down for a night with a beautiful woman, speed up when it was time to hit the road again, and slow down as they fail to find themselves where they thought they would be.

One thing that often WAS riveting about this movie going experience was the photography from cinematographer Eric Gautier (Into the Wild, Motorcycle Diaries) whose vision of America is quite beautiful to behold.

But when Jack Karouac set off on his voyage across America in the immediate post-war years, he was doing something altogether more dangerous, more exciting; and his fictionalised autobiography, 'On the Road', provided an inspiration to the world that followed him.

An unexpected journey to there and back again .

But the movie was even more boring and depressing than the source material!

It was a series of scenes showing off how 'cool' these writers were, and how pretentious the filmmakers could be without making any real point.

Sparse and disjointed, not at all like the book, made for TV , watered-down, sterilized, pop-art depiction of a classic.

So boring that I walked away.

Seeing a bunch of unremarkable everyday deadbeats wasting their pointless life on pointless things … who cares.

It is a complete and utter waste of time!

Then you had guys who were straight A students and got into an Ivy League school like Columbia but were bored with their lives and wanted something exciting (like Sal).

I can't say whether reading the book beforehand will make the film more or less enjoyable, as is often the case with film adaptations but knowing that the original book was set in the late 1940's should be kept in mind when watching this somewhat artistic film as the pace may be too slow for those expecting something reminiscent of modern day self- discovery dramas.

We meandered from city to city with them, becoming more and more immersed in their superficial lifestyle, moving further and further away from a meaningful or interesting story.

The cinematography is absolutely stunning and very striking.

I give this film 3 out of 10 stars because I was extremely bored with the subject matter of the film.