Director:
Alexandre AjaGuión:
Keith BuninCámara:
Frederick ElmesMúsica:
RobReparto:
Daniel Radcliffe, Juno Temple, James Remar, Kelli Garner, Max Minghella, Joe Anderson, Laine MacNeil, Heather Graham, David Morse, Kathleen Quinlan (más)Streaming (2)
Sinopsis(1)
La obra es descrita como una historia de amor, impulsada por el horror y la venganza de un joven de 26 años que un buen día, sin motivo aparente, se despierta con una tremenda resaca, viendo para colmo como unos cuernos brotan de su cabeza. Los cuernos no paran de crecer, y parece que la única forma de detenerlos es resolver el misterioso asesinato de su novia. (Universal Pictures España)
(más)Videos (3)
Reseñas (10)
Una locura creativa que combina con facilidad posturas de género difíciles de compaginar y al mismo tiempo se burla de sus clichés (consejo del cura, policías homosexuales). Aja no es sólo un gran director de películas terror. Aja es una amante de las historias dramáticas con una dimensión romántica y sabe hacer malabarismos con los géneros populares decaídos. Y este es su sueño húmedo original que es fresco y difícil de imitar y que sin duda entusiasmaría a Stephen King.
()
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.
()
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.
()
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%
()
Anuncio