In terms of adapting Joe Hill's book onto the big screen, there are a number of things that go right for "Horns". Sadly, this effort also does not seem to realize what the tone of the novel is all about, rendering it an adequate film and no more.
For a basic plot summary, "Horns" tells the story of Ig Parrish (Daniel Radcliffe), who wakes up one morning after a wicked bender with horns growing out of his head. Not only that, but these horns seem to have the power to influence other people based on Ig's conversations with them. Suspected in the recent death of longtime girlfriend Merrin (Juno Temple), Ig tries to put his life back together and reckon with his new protuberances at the same time. Interactions with best friend Lee (Mix Minghella) & brother Terry (Joe Anderson) help start connecting the dots as to what actually happened to Merrin.
The main problem with this Alexandre Aja-directed flick is that it doesn't understand that Hill's novel isn't really about the horns. I understand that they are obviously the visual standout of the story, and perhaps work better on the big screen than even in print, but they are not the driving force of the story. Rather, Hill constructs a story where the horns are little more than the impetus for Ig to figure out his shady past and move forward.
In this adaptation, however, it is very clear that Ig's interactions with the horns are paramount, and the character interactions are thrown in as best they can be. This leads to a film that technically adapts the nuts-and-bolts of Hill's novel pretty well, but loses most of its literary soul, if you will, in the process. Whereas the story should be absolutely brimming with deep character relationships and interesting observations, it instead is rather bland on that front because the focus is on the visual gags or off-beat humor.
Also, I'd only go so far as to call the acting in this one "so-so". Sometimes, Radcliffe nails the role (especially when he is in a drunken stupor). Other times, however, he seems far too goofy to be taken seriously. The auxiliary cast is okay, but again not really given much room to shine because the whole thing is built away from them.
I understand why this film was made in this particular fashion (it's the easiest way to do it), but I wish it would have built from the characters outward instead. Hill's novel is one of my favorites of all-time, and I wish this film could have given it a better cinematic reputation instead of a solid "meh".
For a basic plot summary, "Horns" tells the story of Ig Parrish (Daniel Radcliffe), who wakes up one morning after a wicked bender with horns growing out of his head. Not only that, but these horns seem to have the power to influence other people based on Ig's conversations with them. Suspected in the recent death of longtime girlfriend Merrin (Juno Temple), Ig tries to put his life back together and reckon with his new protuberances at the same time. Interactions with best friend Lee (Mix Minghella) & brother Terry (Joe Anderson) help start connecting the dots as to what actually happened to Merrin.
The main problem with this Alexandre Aja-directed flick is that it doesn't understand that Hill's novel isn't really about the horns. I understand that they are obviously the visual standout of the story, and perhaps work better on the big screen than even in print, but they are not the driving force of the story. Rather, Hill constructs a story where the horns are little more than the impetus for Ig to figure out his shady past and move forward.
In this adaptation, however, it is very clear that Ig's interactions with the horns are paramount, and the character interactions are thrown in as best they can be. This leads to a film that technically adapts the nuts-and-bolts of Hill's novel pretty well, but loses most of its literary soul, if you will, in the process. Whereas the story should be absolutely brimming with deep character relationships and interesting observations, it instead is rather bland on that front because the focus is on the visual gags or off-beat humor.
Also, I'd only go so far as to call the acting in this one "so-so". Sometimes, Radcliffe nails the role (especially when he is in a drunken stupor). Other times, however, he seems far too goofy to be taken seriously. The auxiliary cast is okay, but again not really given much room to shine because the whole thing is built away from them.
I understand why this film was made in this particular fashion (it's the easiest way to do it), but I wish it would have built from the characters outward instead. Hill's novel is one of my favorites of all-time, and I wish this film could have given it a better cinematic reputation instead of a solid "meh".