Horns

I was excited for this flick. I thought it looked like it could be a fun, crazy supernatural whodunnit kind of story. So, I went in with some fairly high hopes. Did the film live up to them? Well...not exactly.

It's well acted (Radcliffe gives a solid performance when he's actually focusing on acting and not on his accent) and incredibly well shot. I could not get over how gorgeous some of the cinematography is. However, there are a few things that bog it down considerably for me. The voice-over narration feels very forced in there and I thought that some of the exposition dialogue really killed lots of the more dramatic moments. It also suffers from very uneven pacing and the story flows is too jumbled at times.

Overall, I recommend it. It's a fine flick that you won't regret watching at least once, but it ultimately didn't do much for me.

Daniel Radcliffe has come a long way since his stint as a wizard, and "Horns" is a great vehicle for him to continue to grow as an actor and expand his presence to those in the audience who gave the little Potter-head a miss.

Joe Hill, son of Stephen King, has crafted a tale here I can honestly say as far as I know, has never been done, and that's always a good start. The concept is fun, full of surprises, and never dulls.

The problem I am finding with great premises is that it's very hard to fully utilise them, to drain them for everything they are worth, and that is where Horns loses ratings; it could have pushed the boundaries in the fun department just a little bit more, but then, in hindsight, doing that risks spoiling some of the darker elements littered throughout the narrative.

It is a violent film at times, but if you can grow some horns and stomach a few graphic scenes, then you may enjoy it.

The first word I said after the watch was 'unbelievable'. That means the movie is not bad, but how come I missed it for this long. This is the best dark-fantasy movie I have seen recently. But earlier, I thought it would be like the movie 'Tusk' which made me a little uncomfortable to watch. So in the end, what's the difference between the tusk and/or the horn. Both come in a pair and animals have it to defend themselves from the threat. When I watched that movie, I lost interest in this. Yep, it is a silly reason and now I feel bad for that.

This movie dominated by the British cast, especially for having Daniel Radcliffe and Juno Temple I thought it was British film, actually it was not. It was a Canadian-US jointly produced, adapted from a book of the same name and directed by 'Mirror' director. The story was so good, not genuine, though explored the theme very well. For every few minutes later, the narration was taking a turn and that made the plot to get lot tighter before heading for the concluding part.

Maybe this the best movie of Radcliffe that I've seen after his goodbye to 'Harry Potter' movie series. I don't think he's a chocolate boy type, but this kind of movie suits him well. I think he should get muscles for more movie like this, but his height is another negative factor. The film was entirely shot in Canada, the photography was great, music as well as performances. Even those settings like woods, tree house feels kind of wet English and Scottish atmosphere that fits for a devilish mythical charactered movie like this. I regret for reviewing it so delayedly, but anyway I did it and over it, so I hope you watch it very soon as well if you haven't seen it yet.

7/10

I loved 'Horns', It isn't yet another recycled movie to keep you entertained while you eat your popcorn, what it is is completely different from anything you've seen before. The film has no specific genre, it's a jumble of ideas. And I like that.

The acting is fantastic all round, At the start it was strange hearing Daniel Radcliffe speaking in an American accent but he does it brilliantly and his performance all the way through is just brilliant. There isn't a single character in the film who isn't 100% believable and vital to the story.

Visually, the film is also terrific. I could watch the whole thing on mute and still enjoy it hugely.

As many people have said before this definitely is not a film for everyone. It's a 'Love it' or 'Hate it' film and I can understand why many people are gathering at the 'Hate it' end of the spectrum, although, in my opinion, those people are wrong. I'd love it if more filmmakers took risks like this instead of playing it safe by recycling previous tired-out ideas.

I strongly recommend you give this film a go.

Well this was pretty good, although it wasn't quite what I expected. It's not a horror movie, for those going into it expecting it to be. The backbone of it is a murder mystery but there are supernatural elements added to it, as well as a good bit of humor. The mystery part isn't the greatest. I figured out who the killer was immediately with little effort. I can only imagine most other viewers will, as well. But the other stuff with the horns and the way they make people act provides for some nice dark comedy. I was impressed with Daniel Radcliffe, although he needs to keep working on his accent. His pronunciation is a little too pointed at times. Juno Temple is always great to watch. Wish she was in this more. The rest of the cast is solid. Nice to see Heather Graham in a small but fun role. It's a good movie. It's not without flaws but it is pretty original and not pretentious, which is a rarity these days. Goes on a little longer than necessary but I was never bored. I liked the ending, too.