So the for the most part, Texas Chainsaw is just mediocre. It has some extreme plot wholes and is extremely lazy in its construction, but that's it. It's a dull, uninspired, paint by numbers slasher flick that turns Leatherface into Jason Vorhees and has a terrible design for Leatherface, by the way.
But then, about an hour in... something happens. The movie makes a sharp left turn (and to be fair, this is the only time it does…
I've found myself saying this often lately, but it's a fair cop: it is what it is.
And what Howl is is part animated interpretation of the poem Howl, part biography of Allan Ginsberg's early life, and part dramatization of the obscenity trial surrounding the poem.
And that's about it. It's fairly well done and I found it interesting, but I can see why people are turned off by it. It doesn't really make any concessions to its audience. It is what it is.
I liked this movie more when it was called HOT FUZZ. Hell, I liked this movie better when it was called THE OTHER GUYS. Actually, can I just talk about THE OTHER GUYS? That's such a great movie. No? I have to review 21 JUMP STREET? Fine.
Roger Ebert once said that he loved reviewing great movies, and he loved reviewing awful movies, but he hated reviewing mediocre movies. I disagree. I love digging into mediocre films. I love exploring…
I should have known what I was in for when it failed to start with the gun barrel.
You know what was great about Casino Royale? I mean, obviously it was extremely well done, but I'm speaking of the thing that set it apart from the rest. Why was it one of the greatest Bond movies of all time? Because for all that it was a reboot, for all that it was stripped down, for all that it was gritty…