Horns 2013

Horns is an ambitious story and you can link it to several other stories, Bradbury’s Something Wicked This Way Comes, King’s Needful Things and even the comic-book come TV show Preacher come to mind although more in spirit than directly related, the film-makers must be applauded from making something that is neither comic-book based, a sequel nor a remake, although the source novel, which is different to the film, was written by a comic-book author, so they didn’t stray too far of the tired path. The cliched murder mystery immediately knocks off a point with it’s frankly TV afternoon movie plotting and the so obvious killer sign-posted way before the conclusion, even with the huge red-herring mixed in and the teen romance sort of gave the film a not quite-sure-what-it-is tone.

Daniel Radcliffe as usual gives his best and certainly cannot be accused of playing safe with the type of films and roles he chooses. Without him you cannot help feeling the film would have been weaker. Most of the supporting cast is up to their roles although they are definitely overshadowed by Radcliffe with only the reliable towering David Morse going round for round with his diminutive co-star. Hilariously Heather Graham seems to turn up in a bit-part so you know she’s going to rock up later in the film.

The cinematography and setting caused me some problems with some scenes appearing to have been shot very obviously on a sound-stage which gave the whole proceedings and am-dram vibe, which if no sound stage was used is a huge failing. But the biggest problem overall as previously mentioned is the tonal mess Horns gets into, is it a religious black-comedy, a parody of horror and teen angst or just silly? The longer the story goes on the darker it gets the less funny anything is. Was there scares or laughs to be had – as a viewer I felt like a pin-ball firing off the buffers and pins and never settling down. As I’ve noted before the murder-mystery was simplistic and felt so tacked on I was only half caring about who murdered Radcliffe’s girlfriend, the real drive was the angst and raw emotions of Radcliffe’s Iggy. The very premise of his slow evolving from man to demon was promising and looked like fun but then the ball was fumbled and romance and murder-mystery got in the way, including some long pointless flashbacks on the romance which I could not figure out why we were seeing or how it drove the story forward.

Overall Horns has to be disappointing as a film, not for what is was but for what it could have been, nevertheless the makers have to be applauded for putting something different up there on the screen.

Horns was my introduction to Joe Hill back when I first received a Kindle as a gift, and I found its premise to be wickedly delightful, with the writing witty enough to back it up. Years later, I'd forgotten most of the key details of the novel, and decided to give the film adaptation a shot - and, to my absolute joy, it stands as one of the finest book-to-film adaptations of a property I have seen in some time, taking what I adored about the central idea of the of the text, and expanding it, as well as treating almost every element of its design with absolute class. Horns is Hellaciously good.

It cannot be understated that Horns feels like a labor of love; director Alexandre Aja, whose reputation for injecting true fun into his works makes him a well liked director of mine, really infuses his work quality all throughout the film. The core here relies on Daniel Radcliffe's Ig Perrish's gained confessions; these scenes stand as the highlight of the film, being both devilishly funny, and unsettling as characters lay out their desires, often flip-flopping between the two in a hilarious juggling act. They're immensely well acted bits to boot, as you can really study the exact moment that a character surrenders themselves to the "devil on my shoulder" concept, and gives in to their innate confessions, and desires. These are great character moments, with some being immensely plot progressing, and some just plain fun.

That's how a lot of Horns feels; everything just feels imbued with a charming touch. Take, for instance, the flashbacks to fill in how Ig and Merrin know one another; these scenes could easily feel like narrative stoppers (and do, in many films), but here they have a genuine emotion to them, and are reflected back upon by other characters. You've got the rock music that plays during some of the more sinful moments. You've got Daniel Radcliffe ordering atrocities committed to a delightfu degree. You've got some uncomfortable moments as the murder night is pieced together. While some of the effects in these moments are a bit low grade, they hardly mar what are otherwise some fantastic moments.

The film's also rife with great thematic ideas, like the snakes conferring upon Radcliffe, the devil motif, the protectionist cross, and even just the horns themselves; the film constantly feels like it evolves its central premise so it never wears thin. There are red herrings and twists, although few are really gasp-worthy, and ultimately, the ending does feel a bit too deus-ex-machina (er, devil-ex-machine?). But, it's thematically fitting for what has occurred, and still satisfying as a whole.

I really, really enjoyed Horns; it's one of those movies that just does a tremendous amount to a tremendous degree. Good acting, direction, writing, and set pieces, with only a few singed bits here and there. Horns doesn't require a confession to admit how damn good it really is.

Such a good movie. I just finished the book, which you might not be surprised to know is from Joe Hill, the son of Stephen King. (That might actually explain a lot.) The book is just as good as the movie, and the movie doesn't deviate from the book for the most part, adding depth to the characters. For all its violence and cheap thrills though, I'm glad that scene didn't get the attention it got in the movie. I was worried it would be worse. The book built it up so much better, but the execution just wasn't there; it was actually very anticlimactic in a sense. Hill showed restraint I don't think his father would have (and the movie certainly didn't). The movie maintained its narrative better by doing so, but the book established the antagonist's bona fides as a villain in different ways.

Minor spoiler, tagged in case: The book did a much better job of explaining why they couldn't find the treehouse again. Referred to in the book as "the treehouse of the mind," it was a sort of spiritual construct that only appears when it's really needed.

Also, the ending was different, as I recall, so if you really liked the film, I recommend the book! Joe Hill is and at the same time is not like his father, as a writer. I cannot say he is better, but I can say that when his father's time comes, the future of horror is in good hands. His brother, Owen King, is also a writer, as is his mother Tabitha, and Owen's wife — I don't recall her name. I think she writes mysteries? So they don't all write horror. (Tabitha doesn't, either.)