Our guest blogger is hobbyist film and TV series reviewer and writer Harry Casey-Woodward…
Horns 2013, 2/5
A while ago I saw Daniel Radcliffe’s face emblazoned on a magazine cover. He was unshaven, had a steely squint and a smoking cigarette dangling from his lips with no consideration for influencing young wizards with this dirty muggle habit. The headline was ‘Harry Potter gone bad’ or something silly like that.
My guess is that Radcliffe’s new bad boy image had something to do with this film I’m reviewing, for his character does indeed smoke, drink, curse, fight, has some sex and looks as if he could do with a bath, some attitude counselling and a good night’s sleep: you know, like a normal young adult.
This is not the first time I’ve wondered if Radcliffe is taking the same career path as Elijah Wood; in other words, attempting to trash the cute boy wizard/hobbit roles that made them famous by proving they can do darker, mature roles. For example, Wood starred in Maniac in 2012 as a woman-slaughtering psychopath and in 2014’s Open Windows he played an internet creep stalking his favourite actress (who happened to be played by porn star Sasha Grey to add further controversy).
Radcliffe has gone down a less violently extreme image-trashing career path than Wood, but his angry young man take in Horns is still hilarious, especially since he’s adopted an American accent. As grating as this sounds, you do get used to it and surprisingly I ended up caring a little bit for his character. He plays a young man named Ig living in some insignificant backwoods town whose girlfriend Merrin (Juno Temple) has just been murdered and everyone thinks he did it. After a drunken emotional night, he wakes up to find a pair of horns sprouting out of his forehead. He then discovers that everyone he talks to confesses their deepest, darkest secrets and desires. He decides to use this new awkward gift to seek out his girlfriend’s killer and force a confession.
As imaginative and darkly hilarious this setup is, it’s not really explained and doesn’t make a lot of sense. I’m not one of those people who like every aspect of the plot dictated to me and I do believe a little ambiguity is good for a film. However, If director, Alexandre Aja, is trying to make some moral point about Ig being cursed with demonic powers it’s missed because there’s no reason for it. I don’t know if the novel by Joe Hill offers more explanation and, like Kubrick did with The Shining , Aja decided to sacrifice some of the novel’s explanations for the film’s imagery.
But in The Shining, there is a vague justification for the weird spooky stuff, in that it’s a reflection of all the dark stuff that happened in the hotel’s past. In Horns Ig never does anything that justifies his curse. Sure he’s a surly, indulgent, non-believer like every young adult, but he’s not evil. If anything, he’s the character most wronged. The only heretic thing he does is smash the Virgin Mary figurine at his dead girlfriend’s shrine, pee on some candles and then rant about what good going to church every Sunday did for her. Do any of these pathetic, slightly justifiable actions merit the horror thrust on his life, whether by God or the Devil (unless either one has a very bitter sense of humour)? And if this curse is a punishment for whatever darkness lies in Ig’s heart, surely it shouldn’t give him advantages? Halfway through the film snakes swarm to Ig, willing to obey his will, I guess because he’s now tainted with evil? So he uses them for vengeful purposes, thus making him more evil than when he started. If God’s trying to punish him He’s doing a bad job and if the devil’s trying to corrupt him, why him? He wasn’t exactly a pure being to start with.
I do admire films that do weirdness for the sake of it, but only to an extent. Traditionally in Gothic moral narratives, like Doctor Faustus, religious phenomena that has a negative impact on the protagonist’s life has a moral purpose, in order to give didactic instruction to the audience (let’s ignore the film Stigmata, which is based on random religious phenomena). With Horns we have what feels like a traditional Gothic narrative. But the fact that the reason and nature of Ig’s non-deserved curse, whether it’s a blessing or a punishment, is hidden to the audience means that the moral we’re expecting is not very clear. All we get is a character that has a lot of weird, bad stuff happen to him. This doesn’t do much for a story and throws up more questions than answers. The other thing that lets the film down is Radcliffe. As hard as he tries, whether he’s being distraught or vengeful, he’s never very convincing. He always looks like he’s straining when he should be easily slipping into these emotions. Unfortunately, since the entire film consists of him having emotional conflicts with every character, we’re stuck with Radcliffe in tantrum mode.
I didn’t expect the film to be great from the offset, as I’m not a fan of Radcliffe, but I was surprised at how gripping and entertaining it was on another level. Despite the vast room for improvement left by the issues discussed above, it’s still a good murder mystery and the idea of a superpower that removes people’s inhibitions is an original idea that leads to some hilarious and cringing scenes. The story and dialogue is good, even if it’s a lot of flashbacks and emotional angst. All the performances, apart from Radcliffe, are good too. Juno Temple playing Ig’s girlfriend shows Radcliffe up on convincingly portraying a troubled young adult. Even the child actor playing Ig in the flashbacks does a better job than Radcliffe. We also get Heather Graham in a great minor role as a publicity-crazed waitress.
So if you want a supernatural murder mystery with a thrilling plot that looks cool but you don’t care about the supernatural part making much sense, knock yourself out. Other than that, there isn’t much substance here and the film will probably only be memorable for Harry Potter joining the forces of evil.
