21 September 2009 | javastan45
Don't understand the Reviewers POV
Someone close to the Writer/Director must have written the review. It contains nothing objective, just positive, sweeping generalizations about style and content. Nothing negative. I'm not sure what the film seeks to clarify or state. It simply tries to visualize what Neal must have been going through after On The Road came out. From my understanding, Neal was a ball of energy. Nothing like that came out in the film, in fact quite the opposite. Neal was portrayed as pensive and unsure and occasionally cocky. If he were this way, then where is the explanation? If Neal was feeling anything compelling, the filmmaker failed to capture it for me. Why are we supposed to care about what happened to Neal beyond our own curiosity? This is just a bad film. Read Kerouac, forget this film.