User Score
5.7 out of 10

Mixed or average reviews- based on 14 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 7 out of 14
  2. Negative: 4 out of 14

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    10 out of 10
    Rate this:
    out of 10
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  3. Characters remaining: 5000 out of 5000

  1. JayE.
    Apr 10, 2006
    1
    This film was so dreadful, my wife has relieved me for cause as the movie chooser. One scene alone really worked: the hero's being nearly overwhelmed by nighttime surf; and even that scene was too long by half. Many of the others were ludicrous: a desperate down-and-outer spending his last dime on a beer which he then pours into a spitoon to spite a waitress he dislikes ; a destitue Mexican waitresswho can't afford proper shoes, but owns an automobile; an earthquake which leaves its dead victims atop, rather than buried by, fallen buildings; a TB victim on her death bed looking like a cover girl and using her last breath to deliver fluent, Dale Carnegie-like advice onthe value of making a good first impression. This woefully miscast mess lacked credibility, continuity and character development. My genteel wife said it all " I hate this expression, but that movie truly sucked." [The 1 point is for set dressing] Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  2. GeorgeR.
    Mar 11, 2006
    2
    Narrowing the grand -- though no less lonely -- scope of the book, to the hero’s relationship with a local waitress is the first and most resounding mistake of this film. It’s here where Arturo Bandini, the aspiring novelist of the story, does battle with his various emotional, physical and professional terrors. Through furious fits of projection -- the kind only a twenty-year old can command and barely get away with -- Arturo oddly endears himself to women, all of whom seem to be seeking the same thing from him: a show of strength - perhaps the very thing that will transform him into the great writer he hopes to be. The thing that succeeded so well in the book -- and is absent from the movie -- is the accumulation of Arturo’s many fits of longing, frustration, and romantic inexperience. When we meet Arturo we know only that he hails from Colorado - that is all. But through the singular way that he aspires for greatness and goes about it so fearfully, we can assume that home was a place void of intimacy. The way Arturo recreates that world around him again in Los Angeles and then attempts to break from it, is the struggle of this writer’s early life. Unfortunately, however, these are the projections of a generous moviegoer, and not the accomplishments of the scatter-shot film. Because the movie focuses too intensely on what is one of many disheartening encounters in the book it becomes more about how one lonely couple finds each other and triumphs to join the pantheon of great love stories; a particular betrayal of tone, especially when it attempts to conclude the way many of those tearjerkers do. “Ask the Dust” is not a tearjerker. It is a dirty story of youthful desire, desperation and destitution, emotional and otherwise (one that inspired the likes of beat writer Charles Bukowski, who wrote the preface to the reissue of the 1939 novel). Besides their miscasting for age, forty-year old Salma Hayek and thirty-year old Colin Farrell hardly conjure any of the relative gritty adjectives. For a story about overcoming fears of intimacy, it seems ironic that Robert Towne should lose whatever early connection he had to the material, believing instead that any semblance of the book -- and the beatnik street cred it offered -- would suffice. It doesn’t. If you want to see a great modern adaptation of a book from the same period, roughly covering the same mix of loneliness and reckless desire, rent the filmed version of Nathanael West’s “Day of the Locust”, a movie that, incidentally, puts Donald Sutherland to better use. Or read the book “Ask the Dust” and try to forget any movie posters you might have seen. Any movie a reader might imagine can only be better. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  3. CarlinhosB.
    Mar 7, 2006
    10
    It's great. Salma Hayek gives the best performance of her entire career, better than FRDIA!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  4. KenG.
    Apr 3, 2006
    5
    The irony here is that Towne is well know as a highly talented scriptwriter, yet the biggest problem with this movie is that much of it was terribly written. Basically, every single scene between Farrell and Hayek, for the first 2/3rds of movie should have been thrown out and rewritten. It does improve over last 3rd when Farrell and Hayek come across in their scenes together as real people, instead of just mouthpieces for the writer's idea of hardboiled dialogue. But by this time it is too little, too late. Because movie squanders so much in movie's first 2/3rd's, it also never really explores what is was like to have an interracial romance in 1930's L.A. (Which, I gather, it wanted to to). Medina is very good, though. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  5. BillyS.
    Apr 4, 2006
    7
    ok, its not Chinatown, but compared to seeing Basic Instinct 2 or Failure to Launch, It is. More than worth the price of admission just to see two hours of Caleb Deschanel's cinematography and Dennis Gassner's production design. Selma Hayek is the definition of Movie Star and Colin Farrell is slowly getting to a new level on the acting tree.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  6. FrankD
    Dec 24, 2006
    1
    I've seen a hefty percantage of films released in 2006, and this was one was hands-down, the worst. I saw other ones that were terrible, but at least some of them had a few redeeming qualities, if nothing else, unintentionally funny. This one plays likes one long prison sentence. The main reason I bother to post a comment at all is to say that I've seen four movies starring hot boy-du-jour Colin Farrell (Alexander, Phone Booth, A Home at the End of the World, plus this dreck). Except for his intense good looks, what do film directors see in this guy??? I think he is truly a poor actor. All hyoe, no delivery.("Troy Donahue of the new millenium"). Hopefully, he'll disappear soon, and we can return to watching real actors like Philip Seymour Hoffman, Edward Norton, and others who are far more worthy of their salaries and our ticket money and attnetion. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  7. SimoneD.
    Mar 11, 2006
    0
    Really underwhelming. Hayek always seemed like she was acting. Never believed she was this poor mexican woman. Perfect make up, hair, even her waitress uniform was spottless. Colin was fine, but that's it. Book is way to literary to have been adapted.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  8. EmaT.
    Mar 11, 2006
    10
    Great film, so faithful to the book, Salma Hayek steals the movie, already a strong contender for next year's oscars. Her best performance yet.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  9. PeteM.
    Aug 26, 2006
    7
    This is a flawed film featuring fine performances from Salma Hayek and Collin Farrell. I think the work of the actors along with the fine story and visual beauty more than compensate for the underdevelopment of some of the main elements of the plot. This is certainly a film that feels bogged down by the depth of its source material and struggling to match the effects of the book. It is still certainly worth a look, particularly the section featuring Idina Menzel whose character hauntingly lingers with you long after she’s off the screen. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  10. MiguelV.
    Apr 7, 2008
    8
    It was the film that led me to reading the book – a masterpiece – and yet the latter is far more intense and dramatic. Even though Towne decided to replace the tragic ending of the original for a milder finale and greatly impregnated the whole story with a strong preoccupation over ethnic issues, he literally transcribed entire lines of the book to the first scenes of the movie. Thus, what may have been seen by many as a tiresome introduction was in fact one of the most vivid sections of the film with a fine performance of Colin Farrell, who gave an appropriate voice to and convincingly incarnated the neurotic Arturo Bandini, “lover of men and beast alike”. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  11. FredD.
    Nov 17, 2007
    4
    Hard to watch. stilted and lifeless. too much dialog simply states and restates the obvious. looked good though. the actors are at the mercy of this anachronistic stuff. Ugh.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
Metascore

Mixed or average reviews - based on 33 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 16 out of 33
  2. Negative: 3 out of 33
  1. Reviewed by: David Edelstein
    60
    Something is missing, though. The themes are all there, but the movie doesn't cross the blood-brain barrier and rev you up.
  2. The film is faithful to the book's tone of dark ache and much of its detail and for the most part terrifically cast. But Towne can't overcome an essential challenge of the material: Arturo and Camilla are constructs and ciphers as much as they are vivid characters -- difficult roles, to be sure. Neither the screenplay nor the actors manage to get far under their skin.
  3. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    60
    Highlighted by a strong and sensual performance from Salma Hayek as the doomed heroine, elegant pic's muted quality and the central character's vexingly contrary behavior will keep auds from connecting with characters who themselves have trouble establishing bonds.