I'm sorry to be that guy, but the book was so much better. I never expect movies to be 100% faithful adaptations of books, because they would usually have to run four hours or more. Choices must be made. Things must be cut. But the cutting seemed particularly painful here. We got almost none of Lee's backstory, which, in the book, helps explain why he turned out the way he did and gives hints about what is to come. We don't see the development of Lee and Ig's friendship, which is essential to understand how Ig feels about Lee. Merrin is basically turned into a sex object here, instead of an interesting and confident young woman. Glenna is such a useless, throwaway character in the movie, it's worth asking why she was even included. The characters, who are all well-fleshed-out in the book, appeared shallow and one-dimensional in this movie. And these cuts came to allow for some bizarre additions. The fight between the reporters? Terry's hallucination sequence? Gratuitous treehouse sex scenes? I'd much rather have had some more character development.Overall, not terrible. Daniel Radcliffe does a pretty decent job as Ig - his American accent is believable, and while he verges on over-acting from time to time, he generally nails the sense of confusion, desperation, and finally acceptance that Ig possesses. If you're intrigued by the premise, though, I'd recommend the book instead. The author, Joe Hill, is Stephen King's son, and shows his father's flair for the creepy.

Very original concept! Ideal for a night at home. Not a too complicated story and easy to follow. Some things in this story don't really make sense, but it's forgivable. Amazing twist towards the end of the movie resulting in giving you an emotional rush. Con's: Max Minghella delivers a weak performance (like always) and weak choise of music.I see some people giving this movie a 10/10 here and there. This movie is not that, but it sure is worth watching.

OK, my BIGGEST hang up with this film, is Joe King displays a clear homophobia in this movie. Why have a gay character who is only gay if "satan" makes him come out of the closet?Why then, after displaying that this character is gay, do you THEN murder him in the most messed up visual way? Don't gay people deserve happiness?What is the point other than to display that you don't like homosexuals?It was a point in the film that did NOT progress the story along- there was NO reason to do that. But hey- the DRUG ADDICTED brother gets to live right- cause cocaine and pills galore is just peachy right? THAT behavior is somehow worth promoting eh?Senseless portrayal of gay people. I don't recommend this film and the ending is ridiculous. There is NO Explanation for the film, NO Wrap up- nothing it is just over...Im sure 12 years old love this film.Edit: Pretty important to note... When the gay character is killed off- well its as if he never existed cause NO ONE of the other characters even cares.

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.