Horns

> Expected a very little, but delivered very hugely. 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 read more

I was looking forward to this film going into it, based on a highly entertaining book, but ultimately it was just okay. Well shot and directed, Daniel Radcliffe is the best thing about it, but it lacked the punch and dark humour of the novel. Juno Temple's character feels painfully underwritten, ... as do most of the 2nd tier characters. The worst part is it takes itself way too seriously for such a silly premise. There is some destructive chaotic fun, but not enough of it. The creature design for the finale is very cool, then the film just sort of stops rather than giving a satisfying wrap up. Could have, should have been much better, maybe that's my fault because I was expecting more. Still watchable, even if not memorable. read more

Really good watch, would watch again, and can recommend. Trigger warning: rape and murder. It's in the premise, but certain information sources hide some things more than others. Some movies are hurt by trying to be too many things, but this finds a wonderful balance between a murder myster ... y and religiously mythical. I think it is that they compliment each other. Regardless of why Daniel Radcliffe's character has been imbued with horns, the powers he gains serve toward revealing the mystery. I never felt like there was a dead spot where the story wasn't moving forward or we were re-hashing all the details: they do a good job of keeping the relevant information at the fore front and refreshing the information on pace. Why it is a great premise, it is awfully sad one, but I do feel it helps humanize Daniel Radcliffe almost immediately, and he retains his like-ability throughout the film just for the shear insanity of his situation. It is also a lot of fun to see how the power of the horns affect the different townsfolk. read more

**_Humans are fallen angels with shameful secrets_** A young man in a mountain town outside Seattle (Daniel Radcliffe) is accused of murdering his beloved girlfriend (Juno Temple). As he maintains his innocence, he seeks to find the truth while curiously growing horns and learning the innermost s ... ecrets of the town’s citizens. "Horns” (2013) is a crime drama/fantasy with elements of horror and black comedy. It was based on the novel by Stephen King’s son, Joe Hill, and so has that King flavor à la “Needful Things” (1993), just with more modern production values. Like that movie, this one emphasizes the secret carnal impulses that lie just below the surface in any community. When given full reign they cause destruction and misery. Besides Juno on the female front, Kelli Garner plays a friend of the protagonist who’s secretly in love with him while Heather Graham is on hand as a pathological liar. I’d give this a higher rating, but the ending is needlessly long and there’s some seriously contrived writing concerning someone’s response to cancer (you’ll see what I mean). Moreover, there’s an overdone ‘gay’ scene in a police car that’s just eye-rolling. It could be argued, however, that this was in keeping with the flick’s penchant for exaggerating things to comical effect. The film runs 2 hours and was shot mostly in Squamish, British Columbia, which is about 45 miles north of Vancouver, and also Mission (the diner), which is just east of Vancouver. GRADE: B- read more