Rendező:
Alexandre AjaForgatókönyvíró:
Keith BuninOperatőr:
Frederick ElmesZeneszerző:
RobSzereplők:
Daniel Radcliffe, Juno Temple, James Remar, Kelli Garner, Max Minghella, Joe Anderson, Laine MacNeil, Heather Graham, David Morse, Kathleen Quinlan (több)Tartalmak(1)
A film alapjául Stephen King fiának azonos című regénye szolgált, melyben egy fiatalembert gyanúsítanak meg barátnője brutális meggyilkolásával. Az eset után a férfi furcsa változásokat vesz észre magán, homlokán szarvai nőnek, és egy különleges képesség által igazmondásra bírja az embereket. Elindul, hogy felkutassa kedvese gyilkosát. (ADS Service)
(több)Videók (3)
Recenziók (10)
Félelmetes alkotói őrültség, amely könnyedén ötvözi a nehezen kombinálható műfaji pozíciókat, miközben a szent kliséiket (pap tanácsa, meleg zsaruk) is kifigurázza. Aja nem csak egy nagyszerű horrorrendező. Aja a drámai történetek imádója, akár romantikus dimenzióval is, és képes zsonglőrködni a népszerű ponyvás műfajokkal. És ez az ő üdítően eredeti és nehezen utánozható nedves álma, amelyben egyébként Stephen King is élvezettel magára talál.
()
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.
()
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%
()
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.
()
Hirdetés