Big Sur

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.

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.

"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

Big Sur is the end of Kerouac's literary journey which he called the Legend of the Duluoz. Sure he wrote more novels but he never chronicled his life beyond Big Sur and if you read the book, you'd understand why. Kerouac, a free spirit by the time of this book, was around 36 and popular. He lost the freedom he celebrated in his work to celebrity. He found he had less and less in common with his friends and the alcohol started to flow and really take it's toll on his body. I read Big Sur when I was 16. I was struck by how his disillusionment grew when he was surrounded by people and how freeing and peaceful it was when he was alone in the cabin on Big Sur. Kerouac wrote in a descriptive whirlwind when the nightmarish DTs struck. It was night and day how life was for him and he crafted a brilliant literary work chronicling this. I am always disappointed when I see someone else's vision of how they interpret books I like. Maybe I have a vivid imagination and am bringing these images to life in my mind better than what is shown to me on a screen. Never liked any screen adaptation of The Great Gatsby. Not many directors as good at their craft as F Scott Fitzgerald was at his.

Maybe it's not fair to complain about the attempt so much. Big Sur is a difficult novel to bring to life for anyone. The book is the closest Kerouac ever came to something like William Burroughs' Naked Lunch. The surreal horrific terrors he experienced from his alcoholism are descriptive and not brought to life well in this movie.

It's also a dour story and frankly, it makes for a great book but not a movie where you expect three acts. The novel itself doesn't really have that. It's just a stage in Kerouac's life. He carries on when it's over and his descent simply continues....

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.