Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

YouHeart I gave it a 7.5 out of 10

MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

t ickens Everyone involved with HORNS seems to hate the movie with a passion and bring a determination to deliver the sloppiest, laziest, can't-give-a-damnedest work possible. If you put it next to the book -- which is quite an amazing book -- it's a galling disappointment. But equally, if you put that text aside and evaluate the movie on its own merits, it's lifeless and limp and held together with strident musical cues and voiceover inserts that seem to have been recorded in a hotel room while Harry Potter was nursing a hangover. Imagine if suckfests like SPAWN hadn't had fun bits, that's HORNS.

jean-say-hi I have never been more outraged in my entire life. This is by far the worst movie I have ever watched and possibly in the history of motion pictures. Hugely disappointed I can't give it a 0 stars. How dare my friend make me endure this 2-hour abomination with my own two eyes. My month is ruined. First of all, the lines were /absolute/ crap. Hackneyed, meaningless and stupid oh God. I could see Daniel Radcliffe trying very hard to blow life into his frightful part, and I appreciated it but it wasn't working. The plot makes no sense. Plot holes littered themselves here and there and have they heard of the word l o g i c. The only saving grace of this movie is the effects, which were not so deplorable as any other aspects of this movie. And Max Minghella. He was the only one who pulled this off. I'm sure the book was very nice but it can't make me believe it was worth an adaption. I'm going to go erase this movie from my memory now. An F- Thanks for nothing.

Jeffrey Byrne Cappell You would think that Daniel Jacob Radcliffe would be type cast, with a character like Harry Potter. However, that is not the case with the master pieces of a film called "Horns". I am not a large fan of horror, but this film is more of a murder mystery, that keeps you guessing on who done it, to the very end. Daniel Jacob Radcliffe character, girl, has been murdered and he knows, he didn't do it. For some reason he grows horns and sees everyone secret desires, which leads to him to the truth of finding the murder of his beloved girlfriend. Its one of the thoughts stories when you fall in love with your first girlfriend and you will be happy forever, well this one kind of ends that way. Note to self while watching this film, don't trust anyone, and stay focus on the main character, even though me might be weird to look at. This film show a good creative why of how evil is used to find good at the end.

ikp-65004 I know, films cannot reproduce books exactly, but the edits here have taken away many of the more thought provoking themes of the novel. The acting is just fine, Radcliffe is good, and Graham's waitress is hilarious in her darkness, which is from the book. But, the acting is not what changes the fundamental roles and key plot points of the novel, these choices were made by scriptwriters and directors. By changing the time line and watering down the shopping cart ride, characters like Terry and Glenna are bit players without real motivation. They are simply used to keep the plot going. Not so in the novel. Terry and Ig's relationship is much different. Ig is always certain of one thing, Terry loves him and Terry loves Mirren as a sister. The Terry in the novel was never the creep portrayed in the film. He was the brother that was so perfect, Ig never could and never really wanted to try to become. Glenna loved Ig, she never loved herself, but the love she had for Ig was different in the novel. More a friend and born from desperation. The two unforgivable changes are the tree house and Lee. The tree house was more special in the novel because it was magical. It disappeared after Ig found it with Mirren and only reappeared in the end. It was the greater mystery than who killed Mirren. It brought out more themes about religion, good, evil, fate, and real love. The novel's Lee did as well. He was evil from his first moment in the novel. There are so many changes to his story that the character from the film is nothing like the one in the novel. His motivation is slimy lust in the film, but the novel shows him as truly evil and plotting to rape and kill. It just is not the same. All in all, the movie is fun, but it could have been better. It feels the filmmakers have judge their audiences "too stupid" or "too shallow" to really get into the intricacies of the novel, so they turned it into a weak whodunit. I think audiences would have responded better to the characters and themes because these things from the novel make the horns purposeful, not just an accident.