MovieChat Forums > On the Road (2012) Discussion > So God awful.....

So God awful.....

posted 12 years ago by wiebejammen
9 replies | jump to latest

...disjointed, hard to follow, snoozer, effed up relationships, less than optimal performances by the actors (except Kristen Stewart - I'm sure she was giving it her all)i.e., what a waste for Mortenson.

Don't bother with this shyte.

Can you explain that to me on a fifth grade level, so everybody else will get it?.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wiebejammen 12 years ago

If you thought On the Road was "hard to follow" then you should probably read more books and watch less TV.

You're probably absolutely right. I majored in chem. not too much literature required in that bullshyte major. Now go f&ck yourself.

Can you explain that to me on a fifth grade level, so everybody else will get it?.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] electronod 12 years ago

I agree. The only reason I paid 6.99 to Comcast was to see Kristen Stewart's nidlers. I knew what the movie was going to be like as I read "The Second Third" and fell asleep. None of them can hold a candle to Bukowski. Surely with Stewart's sluttish dress when she does the late nights there'd be full frontal but there wasn't.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] madcap-jim 12 years ago

It's okay. Not great but better than I expected. Oh and if you actually paid for this just to see Kristen Stewart nude you wasted your money. The majority of her nude scenes are cut from the VOD and USA versions. Only the French release is uncut.

[–] ck1-5 12 years ago

Why would you pay seven bucks to see something that you can see on the Internet for free (Stewart's tits, that is)?

[–] zina900 11 years ago

Really? The non-existent ones? :P

[–] jamajessie 12 years ago

I didn't like it either. I was really disappointed and almost left the theater. The book was great. This is one of those times that the book was definitely better than the film. I really wanted to like this movie. :(