User Reviews

Fantástic film, i love this.Daniel it,s **** Isn’t only Harry Potter

With such an interesting premise and borderline excellent execution in the first third, I’m kinda left wondering where this movie loses me? It just overstays its welcome for me at least, the reveal of the killer feels just a bit too contrived and the explicit **** scene feels gratuitous. Overall I’m disappointed this film didn’t do more with what it had.

Horns is a movie that tries many interesting effects but does not always succeed. Daniel Radcliffe plays Ig Perrish, a man who wakes up one day with horns on his head and gains the power to force people to admit secrets. The idea is unusual but Radcliffe acts well. He gives the role emotion that makes you support him while he loses **** movie shows eerie moments and a one-of-a-kind mood mixing horror with dark humor and a touch of romance. The tone varies widely. Sometimes it is funny or absurd; then it becomes dark or serious, which may disturb you. The pace does not remain steady. Some parts slow; others skip important moments.Horns offers a fresh view on horror. It has flaws yet you might watch it for its originality and Radcliffe’s acting. I rate it 7 out of 10.

Com certeza, sem medo de errar. Um dos piores filmes da historia da humanidade.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

This film tells the story of Ig Perrish (Daniel Radcliffe), a man accused of killing his girlfriend. Everyone is against him and he's desperate claiming his innocence until the day he wakes up with two ram's horns growing from his forehead. Whoever saw Daniel Radcliffe in the Harry Potter saga surely will have some difficulty to recognize him here. He has matured and seems to have taken advantage of this saga, where he shared the screen with dozens of consecrated actors, to learn from them. The plot begins very well, with the central character being target of an intense and anticipated social judgement. The origin of the horns is never clear, nor the reason why they have such a powerful effect. The ending is unfortunate, in the sense that I expected something stronger and more interesting. The cast plays its role satisfactorily but not surprisingly. The exception is Radcliffe, who shines and carries the film in his back, proving that he's not just Harry Potter but a young promise of the seventh art. The film, in general, is far from being excellent, but complies with what it advertises for most of the time.

Second time I've been surprised by a movie. A genuine all time favourite. Would recommend.

The movie was god damn great. I enjoyed it more than any film nowadays. I believe that it is the most underrated movie of all time, because the critics were so low IQ to figure out its meaning. The concept was superb, and had a very deep meaning which was given in metaphorical ways all the time, but I guess some people who call themselves critics couldn't even be close to parallel the meaning and translated it litterally, word by word, like little kids. If you really want a good and deep movie, that will get will keep you thinking for some time this is the one. But in order to watch it you have to put aside all the religious "stereotypes" and look for its true meaning, the one that the creator of the moive wanted to pass to you.

Horns is at it's best when dabbling in comedy. Much more could have been made of that aspect of the movie. But what Horns eventually delivers is a muddled experience that can never decide what what type of film it wants to be.

Despite a respectable (if not exemplary) performance from Daniel Radcliffe and a solid (though again, not stand-out) supporting cast, I can't help but feel that this film falls short from the potential that the plot and the cast offered. Between an ending that leaves my suspension of disbelief in much a similar position to the leading woman's late character, some dragging sequences, and a general tone that feels distinctly like a B movie- this film was entertaining, but not particularly good. Worth watching, but not worth showing the family. In a word: Average.

It's a dark fantasy whodunit with a touch of the supernatural. A hodgepodge of genres come together way better than they should. Primarily this mystery is a horror-comedy. Just not a scary one. That's not really a bad thing. The craziness of the situation and genuinely good story kept me invested. The laugh-out-loud funny moments and excellent performance by Daniel Radcliffe also helped. It's more emotional and weird than one would have guessed even with the absurdity of the premise. It's clear that the film is in on the craziness going on. There's a tone of self-awareness. However rather than tripping over that knowledge like so many other self-aware films do, "Horns" uses it to add some believable humor to the mix. It's darkly funny to watch people confess and act upon their deepest and darkest secrets, as it should be. While the humor and magic inherent to the tale are appreciated, what really keeps you invested in unraveling exactly what happened to "Iggy's" (Radcliffe) girlfriend is the heart of the tale. All the betrayal, mystery, drama, and questioning really wouldn't mean a thing if the audience wasn't convinced that Iggy really did love her. Radcliffe once again delivers another stunning performance to make sure that we do. Obviously the horns are a big part of this "Gone Girl" style flick. Without the magic there wouldn't be the humor or the touches of horror that help give it the edge. I was really interested in figuring out just what caused the horns and other supernatural elements to go on in the first place. That's where the movie kind of stumbles. While it delivers every explanation you want for the actual murder story, we're left in the dark as to the supernatural part. It's really the movie's only disappointment for me. Given the religious undertones surrounding the horns and other powers there could have been yet another layer of depth to the film. Unfortunately that isn't the case. It's kind of let down, but the rest of the movie is so good I can't fault it too much. It's an emotional, darkly funny, sweet and deranged story that brings several genres together to create something new and exciting. With another stunning performance by Radcliffe who is backed up a (mostly) stellar cast we have another delightfully weird movie from the Harry Potter star that has the potential to charm in new, strange ways. While I can't speak for everyone I can say that it did hook me and I highly recommend giving it a shot.

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

It's not the funniest film ever made, but it's pretty funny. It's not the scariest film ever made, but in places it is genuinely scary. It's not the most romantic film ever made, but it has romance in its soul. I thought it was time well spent, and that's always a good thing for a film.

Nie taki Diabeł straszny… Rogi to film specyficzny. Aktorzy odegrali swoje role wiarygodnie, ujęcia były ciekawe przez co film nie wydawał się nudny. Co chwila jakiś zwrot akcji, świetna muzyka oraz na prawdę ciekawa fabuła sprawiły, że Rogi oglądało mi się bardzo dobrze. Oczywiście nie jet to film Bardzo Dobry. Ostatnie sceny rażą słabym CGI, a film zaczyna się zbyt chaotycznie i od pierwszej minuty wrzuca nas w wir wydarzeń. Podobało mi się jak pokazano upadek człowieka, który szuka zemsty. Warto obejrzeć choćby dla samej muzyki. Polecam. 6/10

Well, this film does have some undeniably funny moments. However that does not change the fact that the concept behind it is completely ridiculous, the special effects are also quite bad.

One thing I'll say is that it's different. Like, in the vein of James Gunn's "Super" different. I enjoyed it, though. I haven't read the book, but I thought the movie was pretty solid.

Yes the visuals were impressive and no I didn't see Daniel Raddcliffe as "harry potter plays X character" for once but other than that and the mildly intriguing subtext what we essentially have is a film which is okay. The plot was unnecessarily high concept, trading in metaphors for on-the-nose symbolism and to be perfectly honest I think were all getting pretty bored with victimised female characters and sexualizedviolence, or is it just me?

There is a lot not to like, and there is a lot that could have been done much **** it is an enjoyable and creative enough to be appealing. However this is really something that will split audiences, some will not care for it, some will really like it. Just watch for yourself and decide

HORNS no es tan mala como parece, el problema con esta pelicula comienza desde el final del Acto 2, pues la primera hora es totalmente divertida, bizarra e increíblemente entretenida, el resto de la pelicula o "la conclusión" termina siendo confuso, poco entendible y ligeramente decepcionante, pero pese a eso, no es una mala pelicula, tampoco excelente, pero cumple con su objetivo: entretener.

Lets start with that this movie is based on the book "Horns" by Joe Hill (son of Steven King). I read the book first and I enjoyed it a lot, so I was looking forward to the movie. However, like a lot of movies that are based on books, this movie also failed horribly in repainting the story on film. I am still amazed how directors are able to do that; so basically you have the book (which is good) and the director only has to take that story and film it. He does not have to write the story, because the story is already there. Then, you have Alexandre Aja (director of Horns), who probably decided not the read the entire book, but only the summary and look at the result.... You probably think "Humm, people that have read the book are always grumpy when they make it into a movie", that is not really the case; the movie on its own is really crappy. The story itself is poor, Alexandre left a lot of the important stuff out, which resulted in a very incoherent story with a lot of holes. There is almost no character build up, so you don't care about the characters. The plot was very predictable and if you combine that with the poor acting (Daniel Radcliffe was not doing well, but compared to the other he did a decent job) this movie deserves at most a rating of 2/10

Daniel Radcliffe with devil horns in a movie directed by Alexandre Aja, this should good... or not. The story is about Daniel Radcliffe character when one day, he inexplicably finds a set of horns has grown out of his head - and it gives him a new power - a power to finally find the person responsible for the devastation in his life. This movie started off pretty damn good with are main character which you hate at the start, but as the film went on he became a bit likable. Daniel Radcliffe in the film was really good in this movie and I want to see him in more movies. I liked that light dark tone the movie started off with, until the last third of this movie kind of fell a part for me. The movie lost it senses of fun and lost it's dark humor with the last part of the movie being pretty weak. But the directing I though was good and Daniel Radcliffe was brilliant in this film.

It was on Netflix, it had Daniel Radcliffe, and it was directed by someone I liked. I don't know how that went wrong. It was really boring, tonally inconsistent, and predictable. The movie looked nice, and Daniel Radcliffe can never do wrong, but Horns was dull and convoluted. I don't know if it was trying to be horror, comedy, romance, drama, or mystery. I do know that it was all bad. I don't recommend it.

I had to give this movie a 10 because I must say I enjoyed it more then most of the unoriginal dribble in movies these days. Most movie any more are either remakes or rehashes of the same by the numbers stuff we have seen a thousand times before. Does that merit a high score on its own? No. But this movie kept me interested from start to finish and I felt the story was well told and concluded perfectly. Daniel Radcliffe did a great job with it and proved he can act and move beyond Harry Potter. I think critics should get there heads out of there butts and see good original content as a plus instead of waiting for the next remake or the same old cookie cutter idea..

This film is incredible, its purpose is to build a mystery around love, comedy and Satanic powers. This it does amazingly with great gusto. It almost perfects the book-film scenario but the ending leaves you in tears not from how dramatic it is but how bad the CGI is.

Horns is an interesting while uneven film that works sometimes. I thought the concept was good, but the execution in many scenes tried for shock value and fell short. Overall I'd say this is a one time rental. B-

I am a bit confused by the average reviews. I don't write many reviews on metacritic but I figured this film is due an honest normal movie goer review. Bottom **** is way out there as far as plots **** I loved it. It is dark, funny and I though well done over all. It is not an artsy fartsy film meant to win awards and woo **** is meant to hit you in the face and make you enjoy yourself. I can't stress enough to give this a try. **** is nice to see 'Harry Potter" not being anything even remotely close to a "Harry Potter".

So much wasted potential. This movie has so many elements that were leading up to something interesting, started to go there, and then didn't. It also takes the protagonist a painfully long time to learn how to use his abilities, and even when he does he forgets he has them. The murder is exactly who you think it is, and the murder mystery far to simple for all the time the movie dedicates to it. And, oh, it does dedicate so much time to it, as well as fleshing out characters that you simply do not care about, almost all of whom are poorly portrayed by c-list actors. The movie is also littered with extremely poor quality CGI, and Radclifs extremely unnecessary narrating. This movie makes the common mistake of overestimating how good it is, and how stupid you, the viewer, are.

The story is poor, the dialogue is poorer, the acting is poorest, and the ending is downright ridiculous. Horns doesn't show the tiniest flash of decency and I find myself lost for words in describing how bad it is. Absolutely unimpressive and a shameful note on the resume of everybody who participated in the making of this film, Daniel Radcliffe included.

Really good acting,really good special effects and an original story are what makes this movie special.Even if we sawed coming who the real killer was, and even if his death was stupid, the movie was still enjoyable.

A man (Daniel Radcliffe) is suspected by everyone in his small town for the murder of his girlfriend. He wakes up one morning and starts to grow horns. As a result of his not so subtle demonic presence, everyone he encounters starts to confess their true (and usually hateful) impulses. This somewhat compelling drama turns into a whodunit, tosses in some horror tropes, then ends up in wacko land. The cast is strong and the encounters are interesting, but the devil imagery just becomes silly and the finale is downright absurd

Funny and smart, Horns is a fable crossed with a murder mystery. Joe Hill's novel seemed destined for filming and the transition works well enough (certainly better than some of his father's efforts). This is a little movie, despite its star. If you go in expecting blockbuster material you'll be disappointed but if you're looking for a fun distraction that is tightly scripted and well made, you'll enjoy Horns. Available on iTunes and Amazon Instant as well as in some theatres.