Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

In other words,this film is a surreal ride.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

I'm a Ginsburg fan and had just never gotten around to this film. I wish I hadn't.James Franco and Jon Hamm. Two total and complete newbie lightweights together in one film. What in the name of God do people see in James Franco? This cheap, poor man's James Dean-Dustin Hoffman wannabe. I'll give him credit. He is a major self-promoter. That's about it. Old pros like Bob Balaban make these pretty boys losers look like just what they are--pretenders.There are actors. Then there are stars. Franco is a star. That's his business. To suggest he is even remotely intellectually qualified to portray the great Ginsburg--an intellect of mammoth proportions--is like casting Bugs Bunny as Rhett Butler.Save yourself. Unless you are a Franco groupie. Then you'll probably be in Heaven. Of course, you also probably think Kristen Bell is a great actress. Good luck with this poorly produced and acted junk.

Inspired by the Allan Ginsberg poem of the same name, HOWL shows the eponymous hero (James Franco) reading the work out lout to a group of fellow-poets in San Francisco. The work obviously inspired extreme passions: the audience listen in rapt attention to a work that depicts the poet's feelings through an earthy yet compelling idiom. In an attempt to show how the poem might work, directors Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman introduce a series of animated sequences; none of them try to 'explain' the work, but rather show how Ginsberg's language works associatively, inspiring moods rather than following any logical sequence. When the work was first published in the mid-Fifities, it was the subject of a famous obscenity trial: Epstein and Friedman restage that trial, showing how the poem was criticized for its apparent earthiness of language, and then cleared on the grounds that Ginsberg was only following the principle of free speech. HOWL is an enthralling piece, encouraging viewers not to 'understand' the significance of the poem in terms of meaning, but to see it as symptomatic of a particular moment in American history, when old taboos and/or standards of moral or civilized behavior were subject to intense scrutiny. The conservatism of the early Fifties had been superseded by a new spirit of adventure, encapsulated in Ginsberg's work, that looked forward to the spirit of the Sixties. James Franco offers a convincing characterization of Ginsberg, supported by memorable cameos from David Strathairn, Jon Hamm, and Bob Balaban as the main protagonists in the court case.

Howl is truly an enigma: It didn't do well at the Hollywood box office, but it soared overseas. From what I hear, the Hollywood audience wasn't quite ready for the intergenerational theme imbued in the film. Well, I say the Hollywood audience was being stubborn. This film handles the theme quite tastefully, and there are no Lolita-like gratuitous sex scenes or love scenes. In fact, Jeffrey Friedman (the director) makes sure that James Franco doesn't even get to see many kids around his neighborhood, so as not to make him seem like a weirdo.Mary-Louise Parker is absolutely wonderful in this film. It seems she decided to gorge on biryani and other delights, as she is chubby in the film, but in my opinion she looks gorgeous thick or thin. Todd Rotondi, who I think is one of the most underrated actors out there does an outstanding job portraying a conflicted Kerouac. Anupam Kher and Aaron Tveit round out the great performances. The music is fabulous, the story wonderful, and the acting superb.

In cinema the adage, "show don't tell", is inviolable. But if the subject of a film is a great poem and its creator, then "tell mama...tell mama all". Can you dig it? Can you get down on the rug that has been cut by angel headed hipsters, stained with coffee and seed, dusty from the hobo excursions to grand old hotels, from whose lobbies poured forth an Eldorado of silver plate, out of your seat, out of your mind, onto the mid afternoon asphalt, searching blindly amidst the broken glass, the blood and brown streaks, desperately searching for clearer vision?If you can, then I think that you will enjoy this brilliant movie.Howl is possibly the best biography cum literary movie I have ever seen.For me, part of its genius is in the editing of its three-part structure: a relaxed interview with Allen Ginsberg in his apartment; the obscenity trial of Laurence Ferlinghetti for publishing Ginsberg's poem, Howl; and Ginsberg's premier reading of this controversial poem to a significant and appreciative crowd illustrated with dazzling animated sequences.Cinematic depictions of poets, real or fictitious, seldom permit them to speak so clearly and insightfully about their creative processes, their motivations, and their innermost feelings as does Howl. In answering the unseen and unheard interviewer James Franco does a startling job of losing himself in the role of Allen Ginsberg. These casual scenes, beautifully staged and shot, provide not only a fascinating look into the mind of a poet, but into the heart and soul of a complex and genuine genius of American literature. The character arc that so many story-smiths will demand is artfully traced in these confessional and contemplative monologues that show us how Allen Ginsberg conceived not only his poem Howl, but a fuller understanding and acceptance of himself. These anecdotes and wan remembrances are recreated through flashbacks and montages that widen the cinematic range of this movie. Whilst hearing Ginsberg narrate the importance of family and friends to his self growth and self acceptance, we get to actually see him with Jack Kerouac, Neal Cassidy, and Peter Orlofsky. Some people rail against voice over narration, calling it a crutch, but it feels right in this context and never obfuscates what is being shown on the layer below. Perhaps this is helped by the tone that Franco as Ginsberg so evokes? Sensitive, yes; BS, no. The movie pays scrupulous attention to period detail, allowing the filmmakers to seamlessly insert archival footage that broadens the narrative of each scene. The fly-on- the-wall moments will undoubtedly be too few for fans of Ginsberg the celebrity, and for acolytes in the cult of celebrity. But it is the other two parts of this cinematic triptych that prove why Ginsberg's reputation was sealed by Howl and the controversy surrounding it. Firstly, the poem is a great work of art. Secondly, it was a crucible for a cultural reawakening and reassessment of values. The poem captures a moment in time as seen through the distorting lens of overwhelming emotions and flies so close to the sun that it acutely catches fire and falls back to earth in colorful flames, reviving itself like a phoenix of phrases and meaning. Franco's poetry reading scenes are way better than just a bit of slam vamping. He convincingly performs as the poem's creator, showing in every line the insights of feeling and knowing that this position would offer. As if this weren't enough, the film makers have enlisted the talents of an animator who actually worked with Ginsberg previously. The use of animated sequences during the reading of Howl may rob some people of a sense of agency; of their right to create images and interpretations for themselves. I've heard the same arguments about music videos. To these critics my reply is merely to close your eyes. The animations are successful as visual metaphors, illustrating with varied styles but recurring motifs a poem that deals with the banal as well as the mystical. Audiences become normalized, and these animations would be better received if more people were able to reject their conditioning and let these fantasies play out before their eyes in all their surreal majesty. In the third section of this movie, the anodyne culture that Ginsberg and his fellow travelers on the road-less-traveled were responding to is treated with equal verisimilitude, forensically displayed in the obscenity trial scenes; some of the best courtroom drama ever. Every character is perfectly inhabited by the stellar cast. The scenes deeply convey the gravity commensurate to those arguing for, or against, freedom of speech. This section shows the folly of trying to define and delimit artistic expression, and validates the importance of protecting expression in order to allow individuals and members of a free society to heal themselves and to better understand themselves.This movie is challenging on many levels, but if given a chance, it is rewarding on many levels as well.