Cornos

Um fantástico filme excessivo criativo, combinando com facilidade posições de género difíceis de combinar, enquanto ainda goza dos seus clichés sagrados (o conselho dum padre, gay cops). Aja não é apenas um grande diretor de horror. Aja é também um amante de histórias dramáticas com uma dimensão romântica, e pode fazer malabarismos com os géneros de filme B duma forma fresca. E este é o seu sonho molhado refrescantemente original e difícil de imitar, que, aliás, também Stephen King apreciará com gosto. (30/03/2015)

Daniel Radcliffe wants to free himself from his fateful character so much that I feel like since the end of the Harry Potter saga, he deliberately only takes roles of characters that are crazy or not quite alright. Good for him. So far, it has paid off without an issue. Horns is a fantasy crime investigation movie that abstractly tells the story of a murder. I admit that without thehorns, it would be a classic crime investigation, but it’s all the more fun with them because I’ve never seen such an idea before. What’s more, it is filmed in such a clever way that there can be no talk of a B-grade movie. I have to say – it really made me happy. (11/07/2016)

Very decent. Daniel Radcliffe's career is assured, here he only confirms his acting qualities. It's funny, entertaining, original and very clever. The ending is very spectacular, a perfect shot of a stick and a breathtaking scene with snakes, which is already a cult classic for me. It could have been shorter, but I still had a decent time. 75% (05/10/2014)

I never saw Horns during its premiere, and I was disappointed about that. The idea of exposing a person to brutal social pressure and mental suffering to such an extent that they are unable to bear it in a rational way and unwillingly transform into a supernatural being from another (dark) world was already masterfully portrayed by Bulgakov in "The Master and Margarita." In my opinion, such a concept has great potential, but the director and screenwriter managed to completely squander it through their hard work. In many comments, Daniel Radcliffe's involvement in the main role is discussed. Although his performance is not Oscar-worthy, it didn't bother me, and his presence eventually became one of the few positives that can be said about Horns. Horns could have been many things, ranging from dark fantasy to a horror comedy (let's remember how excellently The Witches of Eastwick turned out). Instead, Alexandre Aja created a didactic morality tale full of sentiment, permeated with religious symbolism, and using the most clichéd genre tropes. I could partially forgive him for that if he hadn't been so literal and pathetic, and if he had been more sophisticated and imaginative. This is a disappointment. Overall impression: 25%. (12/07/2021)

Absolute psycho that often goes way over the top, but I enjoyed it more than part 1. The fact that it’s a sequel is capitalized upon and so everything is bigger, more explosive and the humor even crazier. Miller and Lord thrive on knick-knacks, antiracism and also... on male comradery. Awesome final credits. (11/10/2014)

A reasonably faithful, but mostly good adaptation of the book. I was a bit worried about Daniel Radcliffe, but he was fine in the end and handled Ig in all situations, and I was also curious to see what the somewhat unbalanced Alexandre Aja would do for me. In the end I have to say that Horns has a very good atmosphere, it's entertaining and quite suspenseful... and if nothing else, it features Juno Temple, gorgeous as always. The only thing that disappointed me was the slightly off finale – even some TV series have better ones. But whatever. (19/04/2020)

I watched the movie right after finishing the book, which I loved, and it only amplified my excitement for Horns. The plot is understandably condensed and simplified to fit the film format, but Aja did an excellent job. He managed to extract all the essential elements from the book, added new material, and crafted a delightful treat that stands proudly beside its incredible literary counterpart while offering something unique on its own. Aja's previous films are known for their brutality and gore, and while there's less of that here, the moments that do include it are impactful. The CGI effects are well done and seamlessly integrated into the story. When I saw Juno Temple cast as Merrin, I was worried I wouldn't get the fiery redhead described in the book, but thankfully they dyed her hair, and she perfectly embodied the beautiful Merrin I imagined. It's easy to see why Ig fell in love with her at first sight. I was slightly disappointed that Lee's character wasn't portrayed in the film as the deeply twisted and deceitful person he was in the book. I was looking forward to the scenes where he tortures his dying mother for months, but those were left out. The flashbacks to their youth were also shortened and simplified, but that’s understandable given the constraints of film runtime. Overall, I'm thrilled with how the movie turned out. It includes everything necessary, even the scene with the snake slithering into the throat. This is how you successfully adapt a book to the big screen. Aja nailed it! (20/05/2018)

I guess I have some kind of disorder, but when I see Daniel Radcliffe somewhere, I immediately think of a wand, a scar and round glasses, but that's a subjective problem. Horns isn't a bad horror movie, I'd definitely say it has an unexpected twist, even good execution. The premise kind reminded me of The Crow, as there is also a form of revenge for a beloved girl who was murdered. In the end, I decided to give it an average rating – the film isn’t that bad, but it’s stuff we’ve seen elsewhere before, and the ending in the woods didn't really appeal to me. (06/09/2015)

Horns fails in most respects on issues of story structure, and the film also prompts questions even over such otherwise insignificant details as "What's it about again?" The fault is not with Aja – who does what he can and, above all, what he knows how to do (which is why the highlights of the film are always associated with trashy violence handled in a first-class way). However, in my groping through the screenwriting incoherence and indeed the omnipresent idiocy, I became convinced that the cause of the failure was none other than – colleague Joe Hill forgive me – colleague Joe Hill. He can change his name until he passes out, but even if he were Creole he still couldn't deny his inspiration in Father King. In particular, the setting of the story in a small town with multiple supporting characters, the childhood relationships carried into adulthood, and the satanic rebellion against a commune redolent with the church is straight out of King's opuses Needful Things and It. That being said, Aja, with the consistency of a fifteen-year-old pervert, dutifully waits the entire story for those scenes where you throw your feet back on the table, a mischievous grin appears on your face, your hand dives back into your chips or down the neckline of your companion, and you tell yourself that such a demented perversion hasn't actually come around for quite a while and you're happy. (19/10/2014)

Merrin becomes just a shadow of her book counterpart, and not even Juno Temple can save it. Daniel Radcliffe shows that he is a capable actor who is willing to shed his British accent to give everything to the role. He's more than bearable, and even though I initially thought he was a bad choice, I was ultimately satisfied. I was less satisfied with the excessive use of CGI effects and the fact that Alexandre Aja couldn't extract true horror from the book adaptation. (13/10/2014)