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.

source: Big Sur

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.

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.

This 75 minute Gem is only for Kerouac fans, whether you like the movie or not. Most will not. Although it stays true to the book, the movie is too short to get into any real backstory of the characters. Many of these characters have so little screen time, that before you an give them any "meat" they are gone as the audience is taken into another scene. Anthony Edwards plays Lawrence Ferlinghetti for no real reason. He is less of a character and more of a glorified background extra as his role can be argued as pointless. Jean-Marc Barr tries very hard to give a decent performance as Jack Kerouac. However, when side characters like Patrick Fischlers performance as Lew Welch is funnier and more engaging with the audience than the lead, the movie then has a problem. Kate Bosworth is present for eye candy and nothing less. The entire movie is eye candy in one way or another, but besides the written text of the movie's book, the movie does not tell its audience anything else.

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.

As a longtime fan of Kerouac and reader of many of his works, I'm accustomed to his spontaneous, stream-of- consciousness writing. As such, I enjoyed the manner in which the narration was executed as it represented an accurate portrayal of his style. "Big Sur" was written at a point in Jack's life during which his demons were beginning to take hold, replacing the wonder and excitement depicted in his earlier works with dread, self- loathing and ultimate despair. The bottle was no longer a means with which to enhance new experiences, rather, it had become a dark and lonely place in which to hide. This is not a feel- good story. Overall, I felt the film provided an accurate portrayal of Jack at this point in his life and it mostly depicted the various characters as I would have expected, given their descriptions in the book. Neal was a likable wild man who also seemed larger than life and I felt that his persona and magnetic traits were well portrayed. The only issue I had with the film was somewhat superficial and it concerns the modern hairstyles of Billie and Lenora - especially the latter, woodenly played by Stana Katic, who seemed to be a poor casting choice, in general. In fact, the period-incorrect styling choices of these two characters somewhat detracted from the feel of the scenes in which they were involved, which I found to be a rather disappointing oversight on the part of the director. The period style issues aside, this is an enjoyable film for those who are fans of Jack's life and writing style. To the casual viewer, it will likely come across as heavy, meandering and a bit depressing.

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.

i thought about this a lot the first time i saw this i was like was Big Sur is one of the most beautiful films ever made with greatest narration ever done in film history turns out i was wrong when i saw it the second time. sure this film had a decent cast almost everyone did a nice job but sad this is Stana Katic just got wasted here this lady is so talented her scenes are totally pointless,if you don't believe me just check her out in castle TV show with Nathon Fillion i am not going to spoil the story here but i will say that the plot & characters are depressing its good to see the acting here but film required editing at most places where it affected the pace,jack's narration gets annoying after a while most of the time he is speaking nonsense. the camera-work and cinematography just saves this drag of a film the way all the amazing scenery is captured its breathtaking. to be honest i am a sucker for slow paced & dialog oriented or novel based films i love them and enjoy them but i don't know why this one failed to click with me even though i tried it very hard to find a place in my heart for this one,Big Sur is a good film but not memorable that's my point. a lot of people and critics have different opinions about films should i have a wrong opinion about this one and say this film came at a wrong time it was 2013 seriously or it was a terrible year more negative points this get as it didn't have any big names in this films and zero marketing etc etc no way and maybe yes it possible to a certain extent but the main thing is Big Sur is simply not exiting enough to sit through. i am not saying this film is a bad one it would be unfair but its just a one time watch that's it i recommend renting it but do not buy this DVD please my rating for Big Sur 2013 is 5/10.

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.