The Subterraneans

A piece of art!This is what describes the movie best.It's about a love story between two very different of a kind people.But the thing that grabbed me most was the good play of the actors which by the way were given much material.Not like most movies which are made today this one relays most on the dialogue.It is not what they say,it's how they say it!I must say as a really big fan of old movies that this one has made me a big impression,it was very enjoyable to just watch how all those actors really becoming their characters!George Peppard did well but a little unconvincable,but Leslie Caron was the one how got me convinced that there was love somewhere in the movie...These are The Subterraneans Today's Young Rebels - Who live and love in a world of their own this is their story told to the hot rhythms of fabulous jazz!

I just viewed this film for the first time. Janice Rule and Leslie Caron are excellent given the superfluous material; George Peppard is stiff and unconvincing.

If you take this film literally, the Beats represented party-loving, self-serving hedonists, rebelling against society with no particular purpose. In fact, the Beats and their literature provided a needed counterpoint to the conformity and staid complacency of American life in the 1950s. They were the forerunners of the Hippies, for sure.

Despite a shallow story line, the film is of historical interest as to how Hollywood (and maybe mainstream America) viewed the Beat generation in 1960, when the film was released.

The music is absolutely marvelous - it's great to see and hear jazz giants like Gerry Mulligan (also in an acting role), Art Pepper, Art Farmer and Shelly Manne.

A true period piece, worth seeing - once.

about an age and not about a period. about few people and a too strange love story. about a world very far by Kerouac novel and the real facts. so, only a sketch. and it is not really an error if its ambitious are not so high. because the basic bizarre piece in this movie it is the cast. why few not bad actors for a poor exercise to present an age ? than - the script ( the dialogs are almost fake ). not the lat, the story - chaotic and too pink. short, it is a trip of Hollywood in middle of a kind of revolution. but the reality is not part from its rules so, the result is far to be admirable. only interesting ingredient - the performance of Roddy McDowall. but it is not enough to be more than a sketch for a decent social portrait.

Tasteless adaption of a great beat novel. The big MGM studio setup is not suited for a story like this. A low budget B/W Noir style, would have suited the story better.

...and I shall begin by saying that this movie (once I found it) was exactly what I expected. In the spirit of later 'films' such as Psyche Out and The Trip, this one delivers the same one dimensional portrayal of a sub-culture that the makes were loath to understand, grasp or even approximate.

I will not disparage the good name of the actors involved. I will disparage the names of the script writers and everyone else involved in the embarrassingly inept screen play of this film, but you'll have to look them up as I care not to.

Oh boy, where to start. First, the presence of real jazz cats with their music and some lovely location shots around Coit Tower are about the best things in the movie, other than the physical attractiveness of the principle actors and actresses. The staging is pure hack Hollywood with groups of old 'young' people standing around silently as the principles deliver their lines and then shuffle off like zombies. It makes me wonder what first time theater goers must have made of this back in 1960 when Beatniks were a thing (thank you Dobie and Maynard). I was just a lad, but my sister was 18 and had some Kingston Trio albums. We took a trip to San Francisco about that time and stayed at a motel near Fishermans Wharf. I later moved to 'the city' after High School and joined in with the hippies. I was always appalled at the way hippies and beats were portrayed on TV and in movies; which explains why this movie and it's shortcomings did not surprise me one bit.

One thing has done is cause me to pursue other Peppard films such as 1968's What's So Bad About Feeling Good?, which I have never seen. Also need to brush up on his other efforts as I believe him to be a terrific actor of some depth and he is certainly a great looking fellow. Honestly, as a celebrity he's everything that Robert Redford is supposed to be, but isn't. Ok, that's it. I warned you.