Daniel Radcliffe stars as Ig Perrish (ugh), a young man in a small-ish Washington town whose girlfriend has recently been murdered. Everyone in town assumes he is guilty - there are reporters camped out at his house that greet him in the morning with Fair & Balanced™ questions like "how does it feel to get away with murder?" At first, we're not sure of the circumstances surrounding the murder - you assume he's not guilty since he's the leading man/Harry Potter, but you never know. Anyways, one morning after a serious bender he wakes up with horns protruding from his head. All of a sudden, people are telling him their deepest secrets, and listening to him when he suggests they do something. Once he figures what the horns do to people, Ig uses his new "talents" to try and find who really killed his girlfriend.
The first thing surprised me about Horns was that it was really quite funny. I definitely didn't expect to laugh as much as I did. The first 45 minutes have some pretty funny moments, where random strangers just let all inhibitions go and tell Ig what they are really thinking (i.e. when Ig asks the doctor what they should do about his horns, the doctor responds with "crush up a pill of OxyContin and do a line" and later "you patients only care about yourselves!" - it's funnier in the movie). The humor definitely dies down as the film moves on, but (murder aside) it almost kind of starts out like a comedy.
The overall tone was pretty interesting too. At first, I was checking around to see if it would even qualify as a horror movie. imdb has it listed as "Drama, Fantasy, Thriller" and on Netflix it's listed as "Dramas based on books, Sci-fi/Fantasy." But I figured a movie with a guy who grows devil horns would probably be a safe bet to have a little horror flair to it. (And it definitely does - there's some nasty stuff that happens and a couple instances of surprising gore. Plus, lots of snakes!) But director Alexandre Aja has opted to go for a decidedly non-horror feel for Horns. The way it's shot and the color schemes he uses just don't seem grim enough, you know? There is a big section that flashes back to our character's childhoods (it's a little Stand By Me-esque), and there is a very heavy-handed but effective dramatic portion of the film as well. So Horns is a little schizophrenic, but not necessarily in a bad way.
But there are still a number of aggravating things in Horns. Some of the big reveals just flat out don't work - they sort of make sense, but you feel a little cheated as a viewer, you know? A lot of the drama works to an extent, but it's also really, really unsubtle. And the CGI is very dodgy at times, especially when it's snake-related. And unfortunately the snakes play a rather significant part of the finale. Also, I wish filmmakers would just stop trying to have live actors react to CGI shenanigans happening right in front of them - it never works. There are two such scenes in Horns, and they both pulled me right out of the film. Also, Horns does end up feeling a little on the long side (it's almost two hours). There isn't a ton of fat, but I think things could have been a little tighter - the flashback scenes seem particularly long, and I was a little confused as to why they even needed the character played by Heather Graham. (She plays a witness in Ig's pending murder trail.)
The acting is pretty good across the board. Unfortunately for Radcliffe, it's still hard to look at him and not think Harry Potter. But he does a decent enough job in the role. And it sort of works to his advantage - he's playing a character that everyone in town recognizes, so it works that he's a recognizable actor. Some fare better with the dramatic stuff than others - I thought Juno Temple was really good as the murder victim Merrin (we see her quite a bit in flashbacks), but some of the others can't absorb what the script has them do nearly as well. (It would probably be spoilerish to say who). But the performances are never really the issue here - it's more problematic at a script level.
But overall, Horns is still a pretty interesting and worthwhile flick. You get a twisty (but heavy-handed) story and a little taste of several different genres. To me, it seemed to be about equal parts comedy, fantasy, drama, and horror. It's not amazing or anything, and it feels a little overlong at times, but it's still decent.
I would recommend this film.
The first thing surprised me about Horns was that it was really quite funny. I definitely didn't expect to laugh as much as I did. The first 45 minutes have some pretty funny moments, where random strangers just let all inhibitions go and tell Ig what they are really thinking (i.e. when Ig asks the doctor what they should do about his horns, the doctor responds with "crush up a pill of OxyContin and do a line" and later "you patients only care about yourselves!" - it's funnier in the movie). The humor definitely dies down as the film moves on, but (murder aside) it almost kind of starts out like a comedy.
The overall tone was pretty interesting too. At first, I was checking around to see if it would even qualify as a horror movie. imdb has it listed as "Drama, Fantasy, Thriller" and on Netflix it's listed as "Dramas based on books, Sci-fi/Fantasy." But I figured a movie with a guy who grows devil horns would probably be a safe bet to have a little horror flair to it. (And it definitely does - there's some nasty stuff that happens and a couple instances of surprising gore. Plus, lots of snakes!) But director Alexandre Aja has opted to go for a decidedly non-horror feel for Horns. The way it's shot and the color schemes he uses just don't seem grim enough, you know? There is a big section that flashes back to our character's childhoods (it's a little Stand By Me-esque), and there is a very heavy-handed but effective dramatic portion of the film as well. So Horns is a little schizophrenic, but not necessarily in a bad way.
But there are still a number of aggravating things in Horns. Some of the big reveals just flat out don't work - they sort of make sense, but you feel a little cheated as a viewer, you know? A lot of the drama works to an extent, but it's also really, really unsubtle. And the CGI is very dodgy at times, especially when it's snake-related. And unfortunately the snakes play a rather significant part of the finale. Also, I wish filmmakers would just stop trying to have live actors react to CGI shenanigans happening right in front of them - it never works. There are two such scenes in Horns, and they both pulled me right out of the film. Also, Horns does end up feeling a little on the long side (it's almost two hours). There isn't a ton of fat, but I think things could have been a little tighter - the flashback scenes seem particularly long, and I was a little confused as to why they even needed the character played by Heather Graham. (She plays a witness in Ig's pending murder trail.)
The acting is pretty good across the board. Unfortunately for Radcliffe, it's still hard to look at him and not think Harry Potter. But he does a decent enough job in the role. And it sort of works to his advantage - he's playing a character that everyone in town recognizes, so it works that he's a recognizable actor. Some fare better with the dramatic stuff than others - I thought Juno Temple was really good as the murder victim Merrin (we see her quite a bit in flashbacks), but some of the others can't absorb what the script has them do nearly as well. (It would probably be spoilerish to say who). But the performances are never really the issue here - it's more problematic at a script level.
But overall, Horns is still a pretty interesting and worthwhile flick. You get a twisty (but heavy-handed) story and a little taste of several different genres. To me, it seemed to be about equal parts comedy, fantasy, drama, and horror. It's not amazing or anything, and it feels a little overlong at times, but it's still decent.
I would recommend this film.
No comments:
Post a Comment