User reviews

"Big Sur" (2013), based on the 1962 book by the enigmatic Jack Kerouac, details the author's three retreats to a friend's cabin in the magnificent eponymous location a hundred miles south of San Francisco. Sometimes he's alone and sometimes he's with friends. Kerouac can't handle his fame and success as the leader of the beatniks and so descends into the darkness of alcohol addiction.

While this is a well-made artsy film featuring narrations from the author himself throughout, it's done in by its subject. At least with 1991's "The Doors," which chronicled Jim Morrison's downward spiral, we got great music, entertaining concert footage and colorful characters. "Big Sur," by contrast, only has Kerouac's stream-of-consciousness verbiage (i.e. "interior monologue") and the beautiful cinematography of Big Sur. Yes, it's professionally made with a quality cast and it kept my interest for the first 45-50 minutes, but then it just drones on to the bitter end. I hate seeing people waste their talents, especially by their own foolish addictions. Of course this is the only way the story COULD end since it's based on real life. Jack was dead at 47. Despite my criticisms, "Big Sur" is worthwhile if the topic interests you and the film's obviously a must for Kerouac fans; it will leave most everyone else bored or depressed.

Interestingly, it was 1957's "On the Road" that propelled Jack to beatnik stardom, but he later confessed it "was really a story about two Catholic buddies roaming the country in search of God. And we found him." Too bad his revelation didn't help him out with his increasing substance abuse.

The film runs a mere 81 minutes and was shot in Big Sur and San Francisco.

GRADE: C

Jack Kerouac (Jean-Marc Barr) is almost 40, bored and jaded after his tremendously successful novel 'On the Road'. He leaves the overwhelming media attention for the isolation of Big Sur, California to regain his sanity. There is no booze, no drugs, and generally no people. After only 3 weeks, his boredom drove him mad and hitchhiking out of the cabin back to San Francisco where he spends his time drinking with friends. His friend Neal Cassady (Josh Lucas) has his wife Carolyn (Radha Mitchell), 3 kids, and mistress Billie (Kate Bosworth). When he goes back to the cabin, he is surrounded by a group of friends. After he goes back with Neal, he develops a relationship with Billie.

It is cinematic representation of the literary aimless midlife crisis of Big Sur. It has the overwhelming and constant stream of consciousness Kerouac narration. There is no story that is anything close to a traditional movie. This imparts more of a mood rather than an actual story. Jean-Marc Barr is a relative unknown away from Europe. It allows the Kerouac character to exist in a tired and empty state. If a bigger star played him, I think the audience could slip into wondering about the acting prowess of the star. Kerouac almost exists as a hole exerting no force on this movie, but Barr can turn it on if it's required.

I think it is fair to warn people that the telling factor on whether you will enjoy this film or not is your relationship with Jack Kerouac and the writers of that time and crowd. The more you enjoy Kerouac's writing the more you will enjoy this film which has remained true to him and his words. If you don't enjoy Kerouac or are not familiar with him, then you might be tempted to walk out, or pass out with boredom.

M. David Mullen's cinematography is spectacular and the Big Sur coast is stunning even on a bad day. But for the average viewer, this is a film with not much of a story or character development and an often irritating narration (Kerouac's words) that, depending on your love of Kerouac will come across as either evidence of his genius or delusional in it's presumption of profundity.

I cant believe anyone would make a movie that is so boring. What a waste of time it was.

He plot, akin to a slow-moving insect, lacked the necessary elements to captivate and engage the audience. It meandered through scenes without a clear direction, leaving viewers wondering if they were stuck in an entomological maze. The characters, rather than buzzing with charisma, fell flat like a squashed beetle on the pavement.

The pacing was as slow as a snail's crawl, making the film feel like an eternity rather than a cinematic escape. I found myself yearning for some action or a plot twist to inject life into the narrative, but Bug Sur remained steadfast in its lethargy.

The cinematography, while attempting to capture the beauty of bugs in intricate detail, felt more like a documentary on insect behavior than a gripping movie. The incessant close-ups of creepy crawlers became monotonous, and I couldn't help but wish for a bit more variety in the visual storytelling.

Bug Sur, unfortunately, squandered the potential for an exciting exploration into the insect kingdom. It left me questioning the choices of the filmmakers and regretting the time spent watching a film that failed to take flight. If you're seeking a thrilling bug-centric experience, Bug Sur might just leave you itching for something more.

It's impossible to discuss this movie without putting it in the context of "On The Road", which could not find an audience. Knowledge of who Kerouac was is limited in the TV age; and his books, all fictionalized tales, yet autobiographical in nature (and to some a serialized mythology of an artist's life) are reduced to a cult-fan base in this era. If the iconic road story that launched Kerouac into the literary firmament was rejected by the Superhero loving movie audience of today, what chance does a psychological internal monologue about an artist's descent into alcoholism have.

So we are left with a simple dividing line: do you know the work of Kerouac and the milieu of "The Beats"? If you don't, then this movie will seem odd and slow-paced, overwhelmingly pointless and pretentious. If you are a fan, then we are confronted with another question: Is simply seeing the narratives underlying Kerouac's poetic stream of conscious writing brought to life worth dealing with the limitations of converting works of art that are not plot-based to film? Like "On The Road", "Big Sur" delivers a simple enough joy to the Kerouac fan. There it is: a dramatization of Kerouac's iconic writings, replete with tons of required voice-over narration of the jazz-based flowing verbiage that makes Kerouac Kerouac. But, you can't help but think, wow-it's just not possible to make a conventional movie out of a Kerouac story, you must have excessive narration, because Kerouac was entirely about the words - the rhythm, the cadence, the explosion of images and alliterations. None of this is bad, but it requires an acceptance of the source we are dealing with to accept such an extensive override of normal plot-driven movie storytelling.

The movie is well directed. Polish mixes imagery well, establishes mood and atmosphere, and handles the semi-hallucinatory descent into alcoholic stupor with a pleasant restraint.

The actors all do top-notch work, although some of the peripheral characters such as Lew Welch, Ferlinghetti, and Whalen seem to have no emotional connection to the main character or his problems. They are just there. Even Neal Cassady ultimately fades away at the end.

Kate Bosworth enters the movie halfway through the story and becomes the last lifeline that Kerouac throws away. While undeveloped as a character, she does a fine job representing the last real thing left to hold onto. She fits the role well, and plays out the heart-wrenching string aptly, as a character smart enough and jaded enough to cope with her fate.

As a fan of Kerouac, I can say that there is so much good about this movie and it's straight forward attempt at delivering Kerouac's last important novel as a film, that I would recommend it highly to anyone that enjoyed "On the Road" as a film. If you were bored with OTR, or didn't get it, you will not enjoy this subtle intelligent movie.

I really like this movie a lot, if for no other reason than it shows how dark and paranoid alcoholism gets. I love the Beats, especially Kerouac, but it's a turbo-bummer how his life ended up, and "Big Sur" really nails how awful it is. Kerouac's story is a reminder that you only have ONE life. You only have ONE body and mind. For the most part, you only get ONE shot at relationships. You don't need to be plastered to be yourself.

If you can sift through the drunken self-hatred, there's still some good Beat nuggets in there: the Buddhist explorations, the meditation, the zest for life. It's a nice juxtaposition to Kerouac's paranoid state.

Big Sur is the Beat Dream gone bad.

If you're fascinated with Kerouac, the Beats, or the era, you may enjoy this picture. Everything is solid, but we're not given music as viewers to digest. Stuff happens, and more stuff happens. Is there a conclusion? Maybe there doesn't need to be.

Attempt made to echo the rhythm of Kearoac's prose in a biopic that is as inconsequential as it endeavors to be important. Some talented actors wandering around one of the world's most beautiful places. The beats are a bit tired as one inevitably matures, however regrettable that may be. This movie would seem to express the disillusionment of bohemian spontaneity without ever giving viewers a reason to care.

There's alot of interesting material from the beat poets to make compelling film. This was lazy and superficial and immature. My rating: wandering out of the room without any desire to pause or rewind.

This film is a total drag. I had no idea Kerouac was such a loser. I honestly don't know what he had to complain about. Here he is, a famous writer, in bed with a gorgeous woman, surrounded by friends and the guy is miserable as hell. I have no sympathy for people like that. Plus he never stops drinking. I guess being a writer the booze is just an occupational hazard but still, I've never seen anyone drink that much! I know he died young as a result of alcoholism and that really doesn't surprise me now. Both he and Cassady had such sad endings. Perhaps there is a moral in there somewhere but I don't know what it is.

If you want to read a truly inspirational writer, who is often called the father of the beats, check out Henry Miller, who is mentioned in the film once or twice, as another writer who would up in Big Sur. Now Miller knew how to live. He never let depression beat him. The man was a force of nature. Forget about Kerouac and Burroughs, these guys had serious issues. Henry Miller is yr man. Reading his material never fails to lift my spirits. As for the film, watch it for the scenery and a semi-nude Kate Bosworth, that's about all it's good for.

After watching the "On The Road" movie and reading negative reviews about "Kill Your Darlings" I wasn't expecting much from "Big Sur". But I was very pleasantly surprised with how well it was done. The majority of the dialogue is voice-over in Kerouac's own words and other than a couple of minor details the movie stays true to the book. Jean-Marc Barr gave an excellent portrayal of Kerouac, even though he doesn't sound like him very much or even attempt to replicate Kerouac's accent. Patrick Fischler was great as Lew Welch and Henry Thomas offers up some of his best work as Philip Whalen. My only complaint is in the portrayal of the sub-story regarding the goldfish in Billie's apartment. Without giving anything away I'll just say that I didn't think it was handled very well.

Other than that the cinematography is absolutely beautiful and the soundtrack set the mood perfectly throughout the movie. I'm really glad that someone finally made a Kerouac movie the right way, by respectfully staying true to the book. This is easily my favorite movie of 2013 so far.

Was not aware of this one. Found it on Prime. Was really enjoying this - a pleasant surprise - until the last 10 or 15 minutes. I got lost there at the end.