Kill Your Darlings

What an incredible film with stellar performances from all, big kudos to DeHaan for his incredible turn, very charming and seductive. The revelation of his true role in the story is a bit of a shocker, there was always something a bit off about Lucien but I never really thought of that. Daniel Radcliffe continues to prove why he is far superior to such roles as Harry Potter, he truly has found his feet as an actor in his own right. It's a riveting and well paced film with a very fine and wrenching finish. I also kinda loved the modern-esque feel of the film, the 1940's backdrop did not always match the soundtrack which had a far more modern turn to it at times. This appealed to my cookiness and fitted very well with the film to give it a unique style of it's own. Bravo to all concerned.

First of all, before the 'acting' and script are addressed, ...the sound! Horrible!! The music is played at a ridiculously LOUD volume, which slams the viewer (listener) suddenly, for no reason whatsoever. It's just one of several examples of a surprisingly poorly made movie. No, this is not a 'film'. The writing and acting are perfectly appropriate for the young kids who think they have discovered the angst of life like no one ever has before them. This is a very shallow depiction of the self-aggrandizement that the Beats built their 'revolution' on. The script is as shallow as the Beats were ultimately shown to be - as most readers and devotees come around to realize. For the most part, they were entitled little rich brats who indulged and were indulged. The acting, then, is constrained by the writing: complete absence of subtlety or nuance; no restraint; no pacing; clichéd and stereotyped - like watching a junior-high-school play rehearsal. There are no surprises here. You watch, waiting for something to build to something - anything. There is no examination of these characters or any historical or socio-economic context, just the assumption that they are smart, insightful, and 'right'. The movie is based on stupid assumptions. Perhaps the problem with this movie is, after all, the material. But, no, it just really is a very bad movie. It looks, feels, and sounds like a student infatuation with the Beat myth. Maybe people who like open-mike poetry slams would like this; I wouldn't know. But, I do know this is dreadful.

The Beat Poets movement was all about breaking the rules, about fighting clichés and traditions, about shaking things up, about the rough edges of life, about confronting the establishment. If I would make a film about this movement, it would be a film with a similar attitude. By all means, I wouldn't want it to be a conventional film. This is where I'm different from John Krokidas. 'Kill Your Darlings', his film about the Beat Poets, is extremely conventional. It's polished and traditional, not controversial or innovative. It doesn't have any rough edges, nor does it shake things up. It tells the story of Allen Ginsberg, the young student who gets introduced to a group of rebellious fellow students, and to their unconventional way of living. He even gets involved in a gay love triangle with fatal consequences. This is interesting material, but the film doesn't do anything with it, apart from showing it in nice, perfect images. The jazz club where they come together looks nice, their clothes look nice, everything is nice. But the Beat Poets weren't nice, they were out of control, angry and mad. The film should have been angry and mad too, but it isn't. And that's a pity.

Another reviewer described this film as sophomoric, and I would have to concur. Like the recent screen adaptation of Kerouac's On The Road, this movie makes excessive behaviors of youth look as dreary, sad, and unappealing as in retrospect they are. There's very little nuance here. Figures of the 'Establishment' are presented as little more than caricatures, and most of the artsy folk in opposition to them too full of self importance and excess to evoke sympathy. The only truly enjoyable aspect of this film, for me anyway, is Dane DeHaan's performance (warranting the three stars I gave up). This young actor has a sort of incandescent magnetism that commands your attention and eclipses everything and everyone else on the screen. Ben Foster is always interesting to watch as well, but Daniel Radcliffe--reasonably competent as a boy wizard--suffers in comparison to these greater talents in the central role of Ginsburg.

KILL YOUR DARLINGS isn't just one bad movie, it's five bad movies! There are so many stories it does not tell, so many themes it cannot explore, so much overall phoniness and shallow ignorance of life, the universe, and everything. It's not a moving coming-of-age story. Nor a thoughtful analysis of Allen Ginsberg's poetry. Nor an evocative film about the World War II era. Nor a chilling crime drama, even though the climax involves a brutal stabbing. Nor a stark, uncompromising look at the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse, even though every single character is presented as some kind of addict. Nor an honest and candid exploration of the social pressures of college life then or now. There were at least five or six good movies you could have made with this material, and instead they made this foul sewage. As I watched this movie, I kept wondering if I was being unfair. I mean, given how vile all the characters are, and how ugly and sad the ending is, could anyone have done a better job? But then I thought of THE BASKETBALL DIARIES, based on the life of Jim Carroll, starring Mark Wahlberg and Leonardo DiCaprio. Ugly scenes of drug abuse? Brutally real violence? The emptiness of higher education stripped bare? Homosexuality right in your face? It's all there, but in THE BASKETBALL DIARIES the stakes are much higher. These people really matter. Even the poetry sounds better! KILL YOUR DARLINGS could have been a good movie. But it wasn't. And by the way, the "Beat" movement was not a club for gay men. Plenty of gay men hated the Beats. And plenty of Beats hated gay men. There was no love lost between Truman Capote and Jack Kerouac. In fact, Truman Capote famously said of Kerouac's ON THE ROAD, "that's not writing, that's typing." It's movies like this that give teenage homosexual murderers a bad name.

Kill Your Darlings is labelled biopic and drama but the movie fails on both aspects. First, the scenario only glances over the emergence of the Beat Generation and its three founding authors : for the literature neophytes — a fortiori non-American persons — the movie doesn't teach anything about that movement, its roots, its consequences, and the importance of the stakes is not palpable at all. The scenario tries in parallel to develop a drama/thriller that turns out to be not much convincing, there was much better to do with this storyline about homosexuality at an intolerant time. The cast, though badly directed, is extremely bland and only Daniel Radcliffe arouses any emotion (which is a desire to murder). All in all, there is nothing to draw from this movie one will make forget as soon as finished.

Allen Ginsberg, who has no thoughts of writing poetry, leaves a very troubled New Jersey family to go to Columbia. There he comes of age artistically and sexually. He meets the later day Beats, all of them relentlessly displaying the signature behaviors which would later make them infamous They all frolic around.. The seeds of a movement are sown. Kind of an old movie plot: Andy Hardy with sex, drugs, jazz and a crazy mother. Poor America has no poetry but the doggerel of Ogden Nash, the film says, ignoring the contemporary modernist poetry of Wallace Stevens and William Carlos Williams. Thus, Ginsburg, it says, rose as a unique pioneer poet from the miasma of jazz, drugs, avant garde friends and almost out of the closet homosexuality to which he was introduced.. The film is much too simplistic to be taken as a consequential story of the creation of the Beat Movement. Women are treated badly in the few moments they appear, and Ginsberg is reduced to a mere observer for some periods of time Then there is a killing. Things get muddled. Very muddled. Ginsberg who was in no way involved tries to help out and is castigated and rejected. We don't know why. Everybody goes their own way. End of story. All of these diverse elements do not add up to a coherent story.. The script writers have included too many of their "darlings" at the expense of cohesiveness. I can't see how this would be of interest to anyone not fascinated by, and knowledgeable about, the Beat Movement. For those who are, this is worth seeing as long as they have only modest expectations.

"Under the right circumstances even he might change the world." Columbia University in the 1940's unknowingly gave life to some of the best poets in the world. Alan Ginsberg (Radcliffe) shows up and is almost instantly dissatisfied with what he finds. The school is too straight laced as far as teaching goes. He meets future legends Lucien Carr (DeHaan), William S. Burroughs and Jack Kerouac. What starts off as a group trying to change the world spirals out of control until a murder changes the lives of all of them. I have never been "hip" or into the beat poet scene. Never been a fan of Kerouac or even a big fan of Hunter S. Thompson for that matter. Not really sure why but they just never appealed to me. I watched On The Road but wasn't that impressed so I wasn't all that excited about watching this one. I do have to admit that this was much better then I expected. This one had a Dead Poet's Society aspect to it and I think that is why I ended up liking it. If you are a fan of the beat poet generation then you will love this. I liked how the character interactions grew to an explosive resolution, that was interesting to me. Overall, much better then On The Road, but this movie made me want to watch that one again now that I know more about the relationships. I give this a B.

Director and co-writer (with Austin Bunn) John Krokidas have created an atmospheric visit to the beginnings of one of literary history's great movements – the Beat Generation – and in doing so have carved a fine story that combines not only the rise of the Beats but also examines the slow emergence of recognition of sexual identity crises, in both a positive and a critical manner. Cast with a group of very fine actors and accompanied with musical director Nico Muhly's sensitive score that includes the references to Brahms symphonies and trios and transcriptions of themes along with terrific excerpts from Harlem's jazz scene (courtesy of Dawn Newman as a jazz singer), this film is successful on many levels, not the least of which is the reminder of the permanent impact on American literature and sociology imprinted by the likes of Allen Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac, and William Burroughs. The very sensitive opening sequence, appreciated only at film's end, sets the dark tone of the film and opens the window to understanding the Beats (also called "the Libertine Circle" by Ginsberg). The time is the mid 1940s and Allen Ginsberg (Daniel Radcliff) is an English major in Columbia University, assigned to be the roommate of Lucien 'Make me cry or make me horny' Carr (Dane DeHann) who awakens Ginsberg's rebellious self and introduces him to the work of Rimbaud. Dissatisfied by the orthodox attitudes of the school, Ginsberg finds himself drawn to iconoclastic colleagues like the egotistical but genius Lucien Carr, William S. Burroughs (Ben Foster) and Jack Kerouac (Jack Huston). Together, this gang would explore bold new literary ideas that would challenge Columbia University's staid stance and the sensibilities of their time as the future Beat Generation. However, for all their creativity, their very appetites and choices lead to more serious transgressions that would mark their lives forever. Lucien has been stalked since age 14 by the older gay David Kammerer (Michael C. Hall) who sees Lucien as his lover, but in this version of the story Lucien acted out his same sex proclivities with both Ginsberg and Kerouac. Lucien murders Kammerer and drags his body into the Hudson River (recall the opening scene of the film) and it is the advice of both Kerouac and Burroughs that leads to the judgment of the questionable verdict. Ginsberg goes on to create 'Howl' and Kerouac moves toward 'On the Road' and Carr becomes a journalist. Despite the at times confusing dichotomy between the murder story and the literary awakening the Beats introduced, this is a fascinating depiction of a movement of enormous impact. John Krokidas captures all the essence of the times in the 1940s New York City and his actors – especially Daniel Radcliff – bring this story to life. There is an uncredited role of Lucien Carr's mother superbly played by Kyra Sedgwick and any number of other fleeting bit parts that add to the mystique of the period. Recommended on many levels.

A little over an hour-and-a-half, but seems much longer. Little to no conflict one can care about - Kammerer just pops in and out of the narrative, which can't sustain any sense of tension between him and Carr, or Ginsberg. The central figures of Burroughs, Ginsberg, Kerouac, and Carr come across as shallow and self-absorbed. Perhaps at that young age they were, but that doesn't make for compelling drama. And the montage surrounding the murder, with its heavy-handed penetration imagery, is so over-the-top obvious to be almost ridiculous. The cinematography is just ugly - I realize the lighting, color palette etc. were deliberate artistic choices, but it still looks unappealing. The actors do a good job with what they are given (Foster as Burroughs is especially good, capturing his cadence, inflection, and mannerisms without descending into mimicry), but overall the film is unfocused, slack, and unpleasant.