Ohjaus:
Alexandre AjaKäsikirjoitus:
Keith BuninKuvaus:
Frederick ElmesSävellys:
RobNäyttelijät:
Daniel Radcliffe, Juno Temple, James Remar, Kelli Garner, Max Minghella, Joe Anderson, Laine MacNeil, Heather Graham, David Morse, Kathleen Quinlan (lisää)Suoratoistopalvelut (2)
Juonikuvaukset(1)
Horns on fantasiaa, mystiikkaa ja romantiikkaa sisältävä yliluonnollinen trilleri. Se kertoo Ig Perrishistä (Daniel Radcliffe), jota epäillään tyttöystävänsä Merrinin (Juno Temple) murhasta. Kun Ig herää krapulassa vietettyään edellisen yön rankasti juhlien, hän huomaa, että hänen päästään on alkanut kasvaa sarvet. Pian hän tajuaa, että sarvet saavat ihmiset tunnustamaan syntinsä ja antamaan periksi mitä itsekkäimmille ja sanoinkuvaamattomille mielijohteille. Tästä on apua, kun Ig ryhtyy selvittämään tyttöystävänsä kuolemaan liittyviä tapahtumia ja kostossa, joka odottaa todellista tappajaa. (Universal Sony Pictures HE Fin.)
(lisää)Videot (3)
Arvostelut (10)
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%
()
Horns is a great creative trip that combine hardly combinable genre positions with ease, while even managing to make fun of their sacred clichés (the priest’s advice, gay cops). Alexandre Aja is not just a great horror director, but also a lover of dramatic stories with a romantic dimension who can skillfully juggle our favorite pulp genres. And this is his freshly original and hard to imitate wet dream, in which, by the way, Stephen King will also find something to make him happy.
()
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%.
()
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.
()
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.
()
Mainos