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.

Horns is the latest film from Alexandre Aja, the French director responsible for such films as High Tension and the Maniac remake. He also made a very memorable remake of The Hills Have Eyes, which demonstrates that this guy really knows his stuff. Unfortunately along with the good he has also served up some mediocre stuff as well. Although Horns isn't a bad film, it is still well below what this guy is capable of. My problem with Horns lies in the characters! Their interactions with each other never really felt authentic and really took me out of the emotion that the film needed for it to carry. Therefore, as a result of lack of sympathy, the moments where the main character and his love come on screen, i was constantly looking at how much time was left in the movie. Having said this, the movie doesn't come without positives. I thought it was very funny in places and there is a moment of gore, but fans of Alexandre Aja, expecting a blood bath, will be disappointed. Lack of gore wouldn't have been a problem if the story worked on an emotional level, but sadly it didn't. Overall, Horns is very creative, but it lacked the interest it needed to succeed!

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.

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