Horns (2014)

Pretty Good

Crappy film

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Radcliff displays a perfect American accent,and is an actor to watch. I could understand every word he spoke--unlike "Marian" who couldn't seem to move her lips, pretty as they were. Otherwise competent cast, but the plot goes off the tracks in the third reel. Keep your eye on Radcliff from "Harry Potter." He's very good and very professional.

Renowned author Stephen King obviously taught his son Joe, now a successful writer on his own, some good lessons. Here Joe came up with an odd but compelling story. It does take some getting used to, because it switches from a darkly comic tone to a dead serious one. As for the comedy, it's not always terribly funny, but it touches upon the intriguing idea of what many of us would do if we were EXTREMELY open and honest about our wildest and darkest desires.People in this tale are compelled to voice their secret, selfish, crazy thoughts and do whatever the Hell they feel like doing, thanks to Ig Perrish (Daniel Radcliffe, doing a solid if not flawless American accent). Merrin (Juno Temple), the love of his life, was found murdered some time ago, and most people are convinced that Ig is the culprit. But, one day as he is nursing a hangover, some actual horns have sprouted from his head, and they have a profound influence on many of the people with whom he interacts. They just might come in handy as he attempts to solve the crime and clear his name.Although it should be clear to most people (even this viewer) who the killer is early on, one shouldn't let that detract too much from the offbeat pleasures of this amusing horror drama. It's gorgeously shot in widescreen, with director Alexandre Aja filling the frame with lots of detail. There is some good gore and makeup effects by the prolific Gregory Nicotero and Howard Berger, as well as a plethora of snake imagery and a genuinely memorable finale. Just like his dad has done often, Joe spins a yarn that includes some effective childhood vignettes.Radcliffe heads a solid cast - Max Minghella as his childhood friend turned lawyer, Joe Anderson as his pathetic brother, James Remar and Kathleen Quinlan as his parents, Heather Graham in a small but funny turn as a vain, self serving waitress, and David Morse as Merrins' angry, grief-stricken father.While far from perfect, "Horns" is just interesting enough to make it a welcome deviation from blander contemporary genre fare.Seven out of 10.

OK, my BIGGEST hang up with this film, is Joe King displays a clear homophobia in this movie. Why have a gay character who is only gay if "satan" makes him come out of the closet?Why then, after displaying that this character is gay, do you THEN murder him in the most messed up visual way? Don't gay people deserve happiness?What is the point other than to display that you don't like homosexuals?It was a point in the film that did NOT progress the story along- there was NO reason to do that. But hey- the DRUG ADDICTED brother gets to live right- cause cocaine and pills galore is just peachy right? THAT behavior is somehow worth promoting eh?Senseless portrayal of gay people. I don't recommend this film and the ending is ridiculous. There is NO Explanation for the film, NO Wrap up- nothing it is just over...Im sure 12 years old love this film.Edit: Pretty important to note... When the gay character is killed off- well its as if he never existed cause NO ONE of the other characters even cares.

I know, films cannot reproduce books exactly, but the edits here have taken away many of the more thought provoking themes of the novel. The acting is just fine, Radcliffe is good, and Graham's waitress is hilarious in her darkness, which is from the book. But, the acting is not what changes the fundamental roles and key plot points of the novel, these choices were made by scriptwriters and directors. By changing the time line and watering down the shopping cart ride, characters like Terry and Glenna are bit players without real motivation. They are simply used to keep the plot going. Not so in the novel. Terry and Ig's relationship is much different. Ig is always certain of one thing, Terry loves him and Terry loves Mirren as a sister. The Terry in the novel was never the creep portrayed in the film. He was the brother that was so perfect, Ig never could and never really wanted to try to become. Glenna loved Ig, she never loved herself, but the love she had for Ig was different in the novel. More a friend and born from desperation. The two unforgivable changes are the tree house and Lee. The tree house was more special in the novel because it was magical. It disappeared after Ig found it with Mirren and only reappeared in the end. It was the greater mystery than who killed Mirren. It brought out more themes about religion, good, evil, fate, and real love. The novel's Lee did as well. He was evil from his first moment in the novel. There are so many changes to his story that the character from the film is nothing like the one in the novel. His motivation is slimy lust in the film, but the novel shows him as truly evil and plotting to rape and kill. It just is not the same. All in all, the movie is fun, but it could have been better. It feels the filmmakers have judge their audiences "too stupid" or "too shallow" to really get into the intricacies of the novel, so they turned it into a weak whodunit. I think audiences would have responded better to the characters and themes because these things from the novel make the horns purposeful, not just an accident.