Daniel RadcliffeHorns DVD

Compared to the book, this movie falls short in many ways. Although, to be fair, I feel this is less the fault of those involved than it is a casualty of the format. As a miniseries, I think this would've worked much better. It would've solved many of the issues holding this thing back from being great. Then again, that's the case with most book adaptations, isn't it? So, moving on from what it SHOULD'VE BEEN, and focusing on what it IS, let's talk about where this goes wrong.First, this movie skips over most of the backstory. Now, while I understand this is unavoidable, given the time it has to tell its story, this reality still hurts the finished product in a number of ways. One example is a lack of investment in Ig's and Merrin's bond. Sure, we catch glimpses of what they had, but it's not the same. In the book, we see them fall in love bit by bit. We feel the heat from that love. We feel it grow moment by moment, and each scene is both beautiful and heart-wrenching, because you know when all is said and done, this girl will be a body beneath a tree. You watch them gravitate toward each other, you watch them love each other, then you watch them get suddenly ripped apart, and you FEEL it. So when Ig finally finds that letter, when you read those final lines, it's like a punch in the gut, because this was something epic. This was something epic, and now she'd dead. This was something epic, and now Iggy's no longer even human. That's the book. In the movie, though...they're a couple. They're in love. Okay. Moving on. It just doesn't carry the same kinda weight, and while, again, that's understandable, it's still a major disappointment. Another example is a lack of any real foundation for Lee's desperate attraction to Merrin. In the book, it's made clear time and time, again, just how much he wants Merrin. He sees himself as Ig's competition in a lot of ways. He sees himself as having just barely missed a chance to be with her. And he sees her denial of him as a kind of betrayal. So when he finally kills her, it feels like a culmination, like this was something we'd been building toward over the past however-many years. Especially since, in the book, we get a look at a strange scene I don't entirely understand, but which ultimately suggests Lee's been stripped of his humanity. Is that scene necessary? Not really--not as much as the others. I'd believe he was twisted without having seen him die as a child. But it does contribute something to the character.Next, I'd like to note the absence of any real sense of mythology in this movie. Is there talk about God and the devil? Sure. Is Ig some kind of demon with magical powers? Yeah. But that's about it. In the book, Satan's almost a character, himself, despite never really being seen. He's the proprietor of the tree house. He's L. Morningstar. He saves Ig as a child, and he grants him revenge as an adult. He gives Ig Merrin; he gives Ig horns; he gives Ig the tree house, with all its little clues as to who Morningstar is and what he's all about--take what you want, get what you need. For me, that was so much of the magic of the book. I loved the idea that this wasn't just some simple deal with the devil. In the book, it was complex, it was nuanced. It twisted time and space, and was just as much about love as it was about revenge. Which leads me to my next point...Where was the tree house? I mean, I know there was A tree house, but what about THE tree house? The tree house of the mind. The one the devil gave them. The one where they cemented their relationship. The one Merrin found comfort in at the end of her life. The one she used to hurt Ig while trying to push him away, and the one she hoped to one day find him in, once his own life had come to an end. The one he DID find her in, once it all had come to an end. Where was that? Where was that symbolism, that magic? Where are those heart-wrenching scenes, and that sense of epic scope I talked about earlier? Because it sure isn't here. There's just a tree house. In the forest. One they can always find, and one which the townspeople can see and interact with and use as a shrine. There's so much I was disappointed in when it came to this movie, but the lack of a tree house of the mind was definitely one of the biggest.And finally, there's the end. Now, I'm not gonna spoil the movie for you, in case you decide to see it, but just know it isn't the same as in the book. So much is just missing. So much was done wrong. See for yourself if you'd like.Now, despite all this, I'm still giving the movie four stars. Because while it missed out on so much of what made the book amazing, it's still an okay story and an okay movie if you're willing to leave the novel behind. My ex watched it before making it more that one chapter into the book, and she still gushes over this movie. Bought it for her grandfather, actually. And truth be told, I didn't feel like I'd wasted any of my life watching it. So four stars. Buy it if you want, but do it knowing it just won't compare.And keep your fingers crossed for a miniseries.

The movie was decent and even enjoyable. It was weird and driven by DR and his co-stars who did a good job with this. The story itself was unique and enough so to make it all interesting enough to watch.

The movie was great but the ending was different from the book. don't want to be THAT guy but I don't read books often and the book was better. The Book's ending was much better as well.

Some books are called unfilmable. I remember reading Horns and thinking how great of a rambling book it was. Partly an allegory, partly a dissection of Kafka's famous story Metamorphosis, it verged in many different directions, careening from horror to romance to a religious critique. But considering how over the place the novel was, I couldn't imagine it being turned into an effective film. As the time passed, Alexandre Aja (High Tension, The Hills Have Eyes) was attached to direct and, shockingly, Daniel Radcliffe was going to play Iggy Perrish. Still, I worried: how would they make this into a movie?The answer is by mostly changing it and focusing on telling a mostly linear story centered around the murder of Merrin Williams. And it's mostly effective, probably more so than I could expect or, frankly, hope. Horns, the film, starts with Ig waking up and dealing with his normal routine. His life is pretty much in the dumps. We meet the pissed off townspeople who have already written Ig off as his girlfriend's killer. We meet his parents and his brother who is a relatively famous musician and who is eye-rollingly introduced with trumpet in hand. How do we know he's a musician? He walks out to a sad Iggy, playing a mournful tune on his trumpet. We're then quickly introduced to Lee Tourneau, Ig's friend since childhood. Unlike the book where Lee works in a congressman's office, here he is a public defender who is defending Ig. But worry not, for now we are whisked away to the night where, in the novel, "Ignatius Martin Perrish spent the night drunk and doing terrible things." The next morning, he wakes up with knobby pointed protuberances; aka, horns. Not only does he have horns, but for some reason people around him start telling him their darkest desires and, if Ig touches them, he gets a clearer picture of their thoughts. And he learns he can push people to do their darkest, most base desires. And, of course, he decides to use these powers to find out who actually murdered Merrin.Whew! Horns, the film, has a lot of problems. It (mostly wisely) cuts out a lot of what I thought made the novel unique and focuses on one major aspect of the story: Merrin's murder and Ig's task to find her killer. It takes a narrative that was structured more like a puzzle that unspooled its secrets, histories and character development in a very non-linear way and makes it into an a more succinct mystery about the horns, Merrin's death and Iggy's quest to discover who actually killed her. I can't honestly think of a different way a two hour movie could tackle this rambling tale. Unfortunately, it's also a bit heavy-handed in its message and is too on-the-nose in terms of its religious imagery, specifically the religious-tinged dialogue. The foreshadowing is too blatant in the dialogue. And I don't feel like we get the full transition of Ig to The Devil that we do in the novel. What surprised me most was how much Alexandre Aja pulled his punches with Ig; the director of The Hills Have Eyes, a movie that threw the worst at its protagonists, didn't seem to want to go that far with Ig. Also, the climax of the film was cheesy and not as effective as the novel. On the plus side, the movie can be incredibly funny at times. One aspect the movie completely nailed was how random people would simply start spilling their deepest desires to Iggy. And Daniel Radcliffe completely sold the amusement and horror of realizing he has this effect on people.So why the four stars? Because Aja's heart is in the right place and most of the changes help strengthen the movie into a more cohesive tale for film. Even though it loses a lot of the metaphors and philosophy of the novel, it still feels like a good telling of the story. Its pacing is equally excellent and kept me enthralled the entire time. It's also incredibly darkly funny and Aja gets a fantastic, if brief, performance out of Heather Graham. She steals the movie, for me; something I never would have thought possible with her. And Aja gets the romance between Ig and Merrin right. Sometimes in order to translate a book to a film, you have to kill your darlings, as the saying goes. And I believe Aja has given Joe Hill his due.

Not sure what to make of this film at all. Did I enjoy it? Not sure either! There were parts that were anusing, surreal and intriguing. Other parts were less than pleasing to my tastes.I am no fan of the occult. The write-up for the film was ambiguous enough to leave me wondering what it exactly this was about. The moral compass was off-cenre for me. It seemed to suggest that diabolical revenge is fine and is a way to find peace and closure. Such as when Daniel's character finally became the devil to kill his enemy, releasing him to spend his time with his dead girlfriend in paradise. Not the sort of message I would want to spread around!Daniel Radcliffe has come such a long way since Harry Potter and has the charisma of someone twice the size! He acts extremely well in this film (the accent settles down after a few minutes too!). He has lots of screen-presence and is every inch the leading man. It is also good to see other Brits occupying most of the other leading roles. A well chosen cast, good sets and directiin. Shame about the moral base of the film!

I highly recommend reading the book before watching Horns. The film alone I think is brilliant, but I can understand some of the negative reviews, if I hadn't of read the book the film would probably seem a bit disconnected for my liking. It's always difficult to create a film from a book because you're not going to be able to fit everything in, but I think they did an amazing job, only disappointment for me **SLIGHT SPOILER** was how they portrayed the tree house, Igs brother and how they changed the ending. Other than that though I really enjoyed it and would highly recommend this film, just read the book first :D

Daniel Radcliffe' amazing acting adds up to the pent up emotion in this film. He has lost everything and is being accused of murdering his girlfriend though there is no evidence that he did it so he is not imprisoned. In his anger and grief he desecrates a shrine set out for her at their favourite meeting place, (where she was also murdered), and is given a supernatural opportunity to discover the truth behind her murder, but it comes with a cost and he is prepared to pay it. Watch out for the twist. Brilliant acting by all.

Starts well and the acting is top notch throughout; other reviewers single out Radcliffe, who is far more convincing than you might expect, but there's hardly a duff note throughout. Love story, whodunnit, horror and comedy work well until the last gasp, when it descends into implausible action after coincidence after implausible action after angelus ex machina. Still fun, but the final act is just silly, and robs the ending of the emotional heft the filmmakers intended.

Seems odd to give this the same rating as Vampire academy. It isnt in the same genre at all. asside from the other worldly theme. This is a Dark film. It isn't and action film but the plot IS inspired. The acting is excellent from Mr Radcliffe. The effects are great and the humour is very black. You can read about the plot anywhere I wont reguritate it here. Not entirely convinced with the punch line.