wow, i was so pumped about this movie and i havent been this let down in a while. i wanted some comedy with alot of action and i got subpar cgi, a retarded plot(not even funny just stupid)and horrible acting and a bad taste left in my mouth.. wtf is wrong with you people...jesus rottentomatoes gave it a 93% who paid these people off??? im speechless.
shareif you do not know much about south korean culture, or their history or the US involvment in their government you will not be able to appreciate everything in the film.
Also, if you have never seen south korean entertainment you will not get the humour in this movie. Intellegent humour in dialogue, but mostly silly slapstick physical acting.
The 'subpar' cgi was due to a smaller budget than US films. I think people tend to forget that although their entertainment business is strong with many singers/actors/models/musicians, they don't generate alot of money from their music/movies/dramas. Their entertainment industry is in crisis atm as everything leaks & people just download everything these days, whilst studios/labels/artists aren't seeing any profit. they often see higher profits from concerts & appearances.
There is no WAY you could mistake Kang-Ho Song's acting for bad. He is a brilliant dramatic, emotional, pathetic but loveable actor. If ANYTHING, he carries the movie well & creates such a sense of hopelessness that trancends his personal pain, but also accounts for mass despair in the general korean population.
I find people who can't appreciate movies with depth, often find them boring because they want to be spoonfed explanations, gore, hot chicks, explosions, etc..
Even though i don't think the cultural differences were lost in this movie at ALL- i often find that people who can't appreciate asian movies are generally because of the cultural issues. etc.. asian horror with ghosts don't scare the western world bcause we don't believe in spirits as asian countries do. The western world are scared by demon movies like the exorcist because they are christian.
I think the point of this movie was lost on too many forgeign people. Obviously it struck a chord in its home country- isn't that enough for you to realise this movie is of significance?
I totally disagree with the original poster. This is a great movie. I was hoping a "monster movie" à la cloverfield but I enjoyed every bit of The host.
And the acting is very good. Characters are cleverly designed and the direction is excellent.
Every one have different taste and it is possible to dislike it, but not to say it is a bad movie. I gave it a well deserved 8 (i watched it streaming on a moroccan TV and the copy was not very good). I am not used to see corean movies but I was pleased to discover something new and interesting. I am eager to see more corean movies if all are on this quality level.
**********************
PULCHRE, BENE, RECTE !
No, the fact that a movie did well in the tiny (film industry-wise) nation that produced it does not indicate that it's a significant film. Just the opposite: it's to be expected that they'd flock to see a film of and by Koreans.
I gave it a four. Solid F/X, decent acting, unexpected ending, and the monster's debut was five minutes of brilliance, but the rest of the film was one long snore.
"No, the fact that a movie did well in the tiny (film industry-wise) nation that produced it does not indicate that it's a significant film. Just the opposite: it's to be expected that they'd flock to see a film of and by Koreans."
What's the difference how big is the film or culture of film is in a certain country..? This doesn't mean that people there are gullible or unaware of Hollywood and other cinema, it's just scale of theirs. In addition, they don't simply flock to any Korean film, this didn't happen with D-war, which blew...
The Host was rated and reviewed highly in N.America and world-wide, it just didn't do too well at the box office, because A, didn't air long enough, and B, the importing studios didn't sell it well overseas...
that's about it.
"No, the fact that a movie did well in the tiny (film industry-wise) nation that produced it does not indicate that it's a significant film. Just the opposite: it's to be expected that they'd flock to see a film of and by Koreans. "
By that logic, every single SKorean movie that opens there should sell well right? And every single american movie that opens in the USA should also make millions. Do i need to tell you that said logic makes no sense whatsoever?
''Never trouble trouble till trouble troubles you."
I agree. I just wasted my morning watching this....and I wish I was dead now. Honestly.
shareI agree. I just wasted my morning watching this....and I wish I was dead now. Honestly.
"I seriously don't know what's keeping you from being dead right now."
Probably a very short attention span, and lack of commitment to follow through...
I think you'll find it got a really high rating because a lot of people liked it, I'm sure there would be some sort of explanation about ratings on IMDB somewhere, or maybe Wikipedia. Or a box of Rice Crispies. The fact that you didn't like the film, though, when taken at full value adds up to rather less than a hill of beans. Very small beans, as a matter of fact.
shareI saw this movie a long time ago, before there was even hype around the movie. I'm Korean and the only reason why I saw this movie was because Kang-ho Song was in it. I've seen a majority of his film. A lot of his movies get a lot of positive reviews in Korea (He's in the Vengence Trilogy)
I saw this movie with low expectations, so i was really suprised by it. I thought this movie would flop because almost every big monster movie flops... including Hollywood.
This is why I thinks critics loved it. Korean movies are known for unique cinematography and directing. The movie is successful in doing both. The director successfully combined a lot of different genres. Satire/comedy, drama, horror, thriller and big ass monster! I don't think their is any movie like it. It's like Little Miss Sunshine meets Godzilla with some Harold and Kumar moments.
Wikipedia does a great job explaining the political ties...
"The film also features a satiric portrayal of the South Korean government which is portrayed as bureaucratic, inept, and essentially uncaring. Korean youth protesters are featured satirically in the film, with a mixed portrayal, partially heroic, and partially self-righteous and oblivious..."
You can read the rest at wikipedia if you want.
It also comments on US and Korean government relationship.
The movie was entertaining. A great popcorn flick!
Beats me, OP. This movie stunk.
*****
[deleted]
Good point mcb-13
shareWhen I saw this thread I was interested to see how people felt about the movie. I think the reason I was slightly let down was that I approached it in the wrong way.
I was expecting something a lot more downright scary, less comedic. While I still enjoyed it, I personally let out a sigh when the archer lady aimed at the monster and took too long to fire. I think if you go into it expecting the odd fright, but a lot more in the way of dark humour, you would enjoy it more.
I still feel that the humour on the whole though, left a little to be desired in most parts. Again though I think I am just a bit sour that I was ready to be frightened, and I was watching a bunch of people falling over each other like something out of Monty Python.
I suppose it's not politically correct to not praise Korean movie.
Personally I'd give this film -3/10.
----SPOILERS AHEAD----
Overall i'd say this films good but definitly not the masterpiece that it's hyped up to be. The first time i saw it i was entertained but with every viewing since it just becomes more and more awkward to watch.
I think the beginning is superb, the way everyone's gathered looking at this creature hanging off the bridge in fascination, and the way it comes out to attack is well done too as it actually comes out further up river off camera and runs down towards the main character, so instead of a typical in your face dramatic epic appearance that hollywood would've gone for it's already running amok killing people so you're already thrust into the terror of the situation, the only other monster movie i can think of that does this is Cloverfield.
I even love the angle it goes for, the government cover up with the so called virus, trying to find Hyun Seo in the sewers, the whole worldwide attention to the incident as indicated by the news, this has the makings of a great film, even the monster is uniquely designed and actually dare i say it looks convincing as a mutated creature.
Unfortunately though the movies shortcomings just stop it from being a classic in my eyes. I can see they were going for some humourous angles in some scenes but for me it just doesn't work. When the father for example is telling the other two to stop hating Gang Du and saying why he is the way he is it was a pretty well done emotional scene up until he says "when i hear him fart i can tell if he's in A+ or B- condition", was that line on the end really nessacary? I hated the sister taking ages to walk to the escaping car, the awkward mourning scene, the dinner where Hyun Seo magically appears but isn't really there, Gang Du losing his daughter but gaining a new son so he doesn't seem to be bothered that much about losing Hyun Seo, the way the actual monster gets done over just before it's killed too is as corny as it gets, the hobo that's only been in the film for 5 minutes appears from nowhere just in the nick of time and starts pouring gasoline on the creature, then you have the typical hollywood trash of the sister firing an arrow with fire on the end at it to set it alight. And on another note, why does agent yellow cause the protesters to spit up blood and suffer but does absolutely nothing to the main characters or the child?
There were so many elements in this film that i thought were great and they were let down by some elements that were just misplaced and daft. Overall again i'll say it's a good film, but i'll definitely say that i think that Cloverfield is a superior film. It's possible that Cloverfield could've "borrowed" elements from the host but overall i think it's a far better executed idea.
then you have the typical hollywood trash of the sister firing an arrow with fire on the end at it to set it alight.
Wait, how exactly is the sister "typical hollywood trash" or you mean that scene?
Anyway, respectable, but all that stuff sounds like too much nitpicking. Also, a lot of the stuff you mentioned just happen to be things that i loved about this film. Anyway, to each of it's own, i found the cast of Cloverhype to be one of the most irritating and annoying set of characters i have seen in a while. Then again, the whole movie irritated the hell out of me.
"LOL, no i meant the scene not the character. I was just referring to how i thought it was a typical action hero type method of dispatching the creature, when i saw it i couldn't help but think of how Arnie finishes the main bad guy in True Lies when he says "you're fired""
I find it quite funny how that scene reminded you the movie themelines of Arnie's trademarked one-liners... It's beyond me... And since you've admitted to be somewhat of a nitpicker, I'd say that to see this in The Host is quite the picky. I honestly am convinced that you're the only one. Nothing about that scene played out typically or Hollywood like. First off, it's quite obvious that the sister had issues with making the shot under pressure, so yeah, her setting the creature on fire by hitting it in the eye might be a tiny cliché', but it seemed utterly purposeful to poke at Hollywood trends of such movies. It's really hard to miss the shots thrown at the Hollywood monster movie cinema in this movie, unless you're completely thick. Otherwise, it was unorthodox, unpredictable and quite the ride. No one could see the brother dropping the last bottle of Molotov. No one could see a dysfunctional family, with a help of a BUM while using the most conventional means of arms, defeat a monster that the city armed forces could not; and to top it off, serve all that on silver spoon as a political commentary that's very real and provocative.
Korea, or Bong Joonhong to be exact, chose to make this movie, because he had the idea in his head for a long time. He is a director that always wants to have his movies serve as vital commentary movies while still being very fun while still reaching their full premise potential and hype despite being a commentary movie. He is much known for this and his keen eye for details. This is not a movie to be watched only once, a second if a not a third viewing is a must. And with no offense to personal taste or Cloverfield, since I actually enjoyed the ride, to say that it is superior to The Host is a joke. Cloverfield was not original at all, even though the monster was, the method it was done, was already done before in a different movie, and done much better. Too many elements in Cloverfield came as too coincidental even if you're to suspend your disbelief in favour of the movie..., too many... Not to mention, one of the biggest flaws in Clover/hype/crap/field (many Aka’s) is the characters. I understand that those were portrayed rather with close similarities to New-Yorker mid 20's yuppies, but those characters were utterly one dimensional; I could not care neither one of them for the least. In the Host you know you'd at least care one person if not two. And what's worse is that in Clover, that plot device to propel the movie was beyond obvious, not to mention heavily used as time filler while in The Host the characters were an actual vital part of the commentary as-well as the plot. And they were actualized very well and felt very real and absolutely three dimensional human beings...
I know that for each his own, but still, it's hard to see the brilliance behind a Movie like The Host when one has missed so many vital aspects of it, and comparing it to Cloverfield just proves that.
I find it quite funny how that scene reminded you the movie themelines of Arnie's trademarked one-liners... It's beyond me... And since you've admitted to be somewhat of a nitpicker, I'd say that to see this in The Host is quite the picky.
to top it off, serve all that on silver spoon as a political commentary that's very real and provocative.
Korea, or Bong Joonhong to be exact, chose to make this movie, because he had the idea in his head for a long time. He is a director that always wants to have his movies serve as vital commentary movies while still being very fun while still reaching their full premise potential and hype despite being a commentary movie. He is much known for this and his keen eye for details. This is not a movie to be watched only once, a second if a not a third viewing is a must.
And with no offense to personal taste or Cloverfield, since I actually enjoyed the ride, to say that it is superior to The Host is a joke. Cloverfield was not original at all, even though the monster was, the method it was done, was already done before in a different movie, and done much better.
Too many elements in Cloverfield came as too coincidental even if you're to suspend your disbelief in favour of the movie..., too many...
what's worse is that in Clover, that plot device to propel the movie was beyond obvious
in The Host the characters were an actual vital part of the commentary as-well as the plot. And they were actualized very well and felt very real and absolutely three dimensional human beings...
I know that for each his own, but still, it's hard to see the brilliance behind a Movie like The Host when one has missed so many vital aspects of it, and comparing it to Cloverfield just proves that.
A - First off, the Arnie example was a bit much, and in addition, the Blade example where he does the scissor kick into the syringe while adding ‘some motherfu#$ers always try to skate uphill’ while very cheesy and fits into your example of flash over substance. One thing you need to realize, and that is what type of a movie Blade was. Asides from that line being this clichéd to the genre’ it served purpose into Blade’s personality, and it fit just right into his overall demeanour. If you remember, in Blade, there’s a scene where he talks to Frost when Frost is offering him a choice to join forces, Blade looks at him and says ‘to me you’re nothing more than just a dead vampire.’ This line carried such a sense of irony on Blade’s part that totally changed my perception of the Villain in this movie. The reason why blade pulled that stunt at the end is the same reason he was pulling all sorts of stunts and acrobatics while killing other generic vampires. Try to remember that intro rave scene, watch how he kills those vampires and how his martial art moves being exhibited and with what sense of flash. There was a purpose to the end scene and the way he delivered it. In addition, with all that, it was nothing like in the Host. Something I’ve already mentioned before and you’ve seem to chose to ignore. That whole scene and the way it played out may have very well been a stab at the Hollywood typical clichéd moments just as you’ve mentioned. Even in a recent film that actually scored very high, IRONMAN, there is that typical scene. The scene where Stark is attacking the Middle Eastern terrorists and trying to destroy his weaponry, after the tank shoots him down and fires another missile, IronMan simply pulls a tiny missile from his fist, shoots it at the tank, makes a 180 turn and walks away as the tank blows up. So yeah, that was cool but as you said, could have been done differently. So again, The Host, which I believe, was poking at Hollywood cinema by constructing that end scene they way they did, while at the same time play out not so typically. Honestly, you may have seen the brother dropping the bottle, but I doubt that you saw the Girl’s death coming, that hit as a shock to many; very un-Hollywood like. Also, the point you find irritating that a dysfunctional family with conventional weapons like sticks, bow and arrow, fire and homebrew bombs, somehow would overcome this monster while guns would’ve have been more effective. One thing you need to understand is that it was part of the political commentary in the movie. Part of it is poking at the Korean government for being weak and succumbing to U.S. Authority and taking on executing their plan in order to maintain status quo and diplomatic relations. Therefore the Agent Yellow was the U.S. politically correct and responsible course of action for the Korean government to take against the Creature. Not to mention, a drive to introduce the Agent Orange, which was subjected to many law-suits by Korea against the U.S. for selling them the very hazardous herbicide? There is a reason why weapons were not used against the creature. In addition, another aspect is to show just how ineffective governments are in regards to protecting the little man when it come to crisis like this; and this is not only directed at Korea, but also all Democratic ran nations, mainly the states. The city officials and government were so preoccupied with masking the reality of this event that they completely disregarded public safety, health and reason. There’s a reason why there’s a scene where the city officials are seen spraying the area in a truck, while the driver is pulling over because he saw some money laying on the ground; completely disregarding the potential of a menacing creature, which in a way reflected how people disregard nature without realizing that they could end up being victims themselves because of that. The creature by no means was a metaphor, but it served as a vehicle for many issues to surface through the movie.
B – You say you’ve seen the movie 3-4 times, but it seems that you’re still missing some elements in it. Let me start by asking you this; are you aware that the event shown at the beginning of the movie (the chemical dumping ordered by a U.S. doctor) is based on real and extremely similar events in Korea in 2000? If you’re aware that’s good, but if not, major killer for movie comprehension. Secondly you should read the full interview with the director as he explains the Host. If you go on Wikipedia and search The Host, at the bottom of the page you’ll have numerous external links, choose the first one and read the whole thing, it will clarify many things. Personally to me, it didn’t add that much love to the movie as I already liked it, but it made me appreciate it much more.
C – It is really hard to name all the commentary addressed in this movie, but be sure that it is mostly political, but also very social and environmental. The movie has brought those mostly in satirical forms, which made it campy and fun to watch. One for example, as I mentioned already before is the Agent Orange reference (look it up), another is the N.W.O.M.D. during the war against Iraq. The whole ideology that the U.S. government has fabricated the rumour of Iraqi silos of chemical weapons, and therefore justifying a war against them; while in fact there were never any such weapons, just rumours. Does that plot not sound similar to the nonexistent virus epidemic in The Host? SARS, Bird Flu, and Anthrax and among those. 9-11 is another theme that was addressed, much as it was in Cloverfield.
D – Your assumption was correct as I did in fact mean Blair-Witch. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that Clover was a bad movie; in fact I think it was well made, just not as well as The Host. It might be exciting for some parts, but seeing how the writer is J.J. Abrams, the character driven drama in this movie just doesn’t work and does not justify the ride. To be Honest that group of people are not the only ones that were carrying a camera, I’m sure someone else in N.Y. must have had one handy. However, being the movie that it is, that footage was found. However, in all fairness, this ride could’ve worked just as-well in given a different group of people recording the events under different settings and dramatic expose’s. Honestly the first 25 minutes seemed weak and out of place. In the Host, as I mentioned, the characters were vital to the plot, and none other characters would’ve worked, simply because the daughter of the main protagonist was still alive and was the one captured by the creature, as opposing sitting impaled in a building that was indirectly affected by a creature; see the difference in construction and relevance? In addition, there is actually reflection between the creature and Gong-Du, and this is directly from the director’s mouth.
E – The too coincidental moments in Cloverfield are the ones that are directly related to the creature appearing at the right moment as the cameraman (Hud) decides to turn it on. I know it’s a movie motif, but still… for example the encounter of the little parasites. Somehow they don’t attack in the dark despite being there, only after the night-vision is set on and reveal of the creatures, then comes the attack… a little too convenient in favour of showing off the good… it could have been done in a much more clever way. Also, a creature that is made out of an organic matter (as it is presumed rising from the sea) is completely unaffected by heat or massive bombing, not to the very little bit? Seriously…, if one is going to design an impervious monster, he needs to be more creative with it and its origin. Nothing was explained about this monster, what it is, where it came from (originally), what it wants or its purpose. I know that the purpose of the movie, or in partial, was to show what mass hysteria and panic in face of the unknown looks and feels like… and I will admit, is some parts it was very effective… so yeah, I’ll give Clovie that much… but at the end of the day, to leave the movie ending the way it did, and with the lack of informative material all throughout, once the ride is over and the hype is gone, the viewers feel like a middle finger was waving way up high at them… Also, the biggest thing for me was the stealthy Ninja move close to the end. Okay, the chopper, down, the pilot and the other soldier, dead… somehow… the three heroes are alive… Hud with a broke or sprained leg, Rob with scratched (after a Helicopter crash)… and his Girlfriend, after being impaled, alive and kicking stronger than ever…. Jets flying by towards the city… Hud turns back to his camera and Boom… out of no-where…. CLOVIE… what in the hell… seriously…
F – It’s easy to compare Clovie to The Host if you’re only looking at the superficial elements. Other than that, they are two completely different movies. The quirkiness of the tone shift in The Host is done on purpose and it meant to create a sense of confusion and discomfort in the viewer, and that makes the viewer actually think and ponder the movie later on, for days… Also, while in The Host the shifting seemed more rapid, for any person who is aware of the Korean cinema, this is nothing new. There are many Korean dramas and even Romantic comedies that have dramatic shifts from goofy almost spoof –like feel to a scene that can remind you of the hardcore action flicks out there. One of those movies is called Arahan, a martial arts comedy. If you have a chance to watch it, you should… Another one is famous, My Sassy girl (the original)… that movie has tonal shifts that will drive you nuts and send you on an emotional rollercoaster… And while the Host had slightly dwelled into the special effects world, it had to since this was the first Korean cinematic attempt at a Monster/Creature movie…but rest assure, the rest fell very much into the very familiar Korean Mise’-En-Scene orchestra of capitalizing on what emotions certain scenes will draw out of the crowds instead of trying to find the coolest way of propelling the story…
Like I said before, “to each his own”, but in the grand scheme of things, The Host is much clever made written, thought out, acted and executed movie on all counts…
the Blade example where he does the scissor kick into the syringe while adding ‘some motherfu#$ers always try to skate uphill’ while very cheesy and fits into your example of flash over substance. One thing you need to realize, and that is what type of a movie Blade was.
Something I’ve already mentioned before and you’ve seem to chose to ignore. That whole scene and the way it played out may have very well been a stab at the Hollywood typical clichéd moments just as you’ve mentioned. Even in a recent film that actually scored very high, IRONMAN, there is that typical scene. The scene where Stark is attacking the Middle Eastern terrorists and trying to destroy his weaponry, after the tank shoots him down and fires another missile, IronMan simply pulls a tiny missile from his fist, shoots it at the tank, makes a 180 turn and walks away as the tank blows up.
You say you’ve seen the movie 3-4 times, but it seems that you’re still missing some elements in it. Let me start by asking you this; are you aware that the event shown at the beginning of the movie (the chemical dumping ordered by a U.S. doctor) is based on real and extremely similar events in Korea in 2000? If you’re aware that’s good, but if not, major killer for movie comprehension. Secondly you should read the full interview with the director as he explains the Host. If you go on Wikipedia and search The Host, at the bottom of the page you’ll have numerous external links, choose the first one and read the whole thing, it will clarify many things. Personally to me, it didn’t add that much love to the movie as I already liked it, but it made me appreciate it much more.
Your assumption was correct as I did in fact mean Blair-Witch. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that Clover was a bad movie; in fact I think it was well made, just not as well as The Host. It might be exciting for some parts, but seeing how the writer is J.J. Abrams, the character driven drama in this movie just doesn’t work and does not justify the ride. To be Honest that group of people are not the only ones that were carrying a camera, I’m sure someone else in N.Y. must have had one handy. However, being the movie that it is, that footage was found. However, in all fairness, this ride could’ve worked just as-well in given a different group of people recording the events under different settings and dramatic expose’s. In the Host, as I mentioned, the characters were vital to the plot, and none other characters would’ve worked, simply because the daughter of the main protagonist was still alive and was the one captured by the creature, as opposing sitting impaled in a building that was indirectly affected by a creature; see the difference in construction and relevance? In addition, there is actually reflection between the creature and Gong-Du, and this is directly from the director’s mouth.
The too coincidental moments in Cloverfield are the ones that are directly related to the creature appearing at the right moment as the cameraman (Hud) decides to turn it on. I know it’s a movie motif, but still… for example the encounter of the little parasites. Somehow they don’t attack in the dark despite being there, only after the night-vision is set on and reveal of the creatures, then comes the attack… a little too convenient in favour of showing off the good… it could have been done in a much more clever way.
Nothing was explained about this monster, what it is, where it came from (originally), what it wants or its purpose.
but at the end of the day, to leave the movie ending the way it did, and with the lack of informative material all throughout, once the ride is over and the hype is gone, the viewers feel like a middle finger was waving way up high at them…
Okay, the chopper, down, the pilot and the other soldier, dead… somehow… the three heroes are alive… Hud with a broke or sprained leg, Rob with scratched (after a Helicopter crash)… and his Girlfriend, after being impaled, alive and kicking stronger than ever…. Jets flying by towards the city… Hud turns back to his camera and Boom… out of no-where…. CLOVIE… what in the hell… seriously…
It’s easy to compare Clovie to The Host if you’re only looking at the superficial elements. Other than that, they are two completely different movies. The quirkiness of the tone shift in The Host is done on purpose and it meant to create a sense of confusion and discomfort in the viewer, and that makes the viewer actually think and ponder the movie later on, for days…
Also, while in The Host the shifting seemed more rapid, for any person who is aware of the Korean cinema, this is nothing new. There are many Korean dramas and even Romantic comedies that have dramatic shifts from goofy almost spoof –like feel to a scene that can remind you of the hardcore action flicks out there. One of those movies is called Arahan, a martial arts comedy. If you have a chance to watch it, you should… Another one is famous, My Sassy girl (the original)… that movie has tonal shifts that will drive you nuts and send you on an emotional rollercoaster
Like I said before, “to each his own”, but in the grand scheme of things, The Host is much clever made written, thought out, acted and executed movie on all counts…
1 The final moment in Blade had to be over the top, and since you’ve already accepted that it would be one of those movies, it had to be done that way… I agree that it was slightly more style over practicality, but that’s one of those moments where the hero finishes off the baddie with a bang. Sure, he could’ve just thrown it at him, but with the kick it emphasizes that blade puts the stamp as the final blow and an end to that chapter is his life… But I agree, it was obvious cheese…
2 There’s something to be understood between satire and a parody. The Host, with specifics to that scene, has never meant to spoof or have the Hollywood flicks as parody in mind. It used a handful of humour in the movie to bring out the commentary or criticism, especially the brother dropping the Molotov; that was a laugh out loud moment, as well as the city official in the biosuit falling down as he enters the hall. The scene where everyone is crying at the funeral while another official is seeking for a woman who parked illegally, or the official turning on the TV to the news station and saying that the TV will explain things better… total WTF moments… and they worked really well. That scene didn’t aim to parody, rather poke at Hollywood while utilizing it as well to show the collaboration of a bunch of misfits as they’re able to take on a monster that the city itself could not… satire as well as poking at the over the top Hollywood cheesiness. I brought the argument of Ironman to see how you will respond to it… and I was right with my assumption that you’d defend it to an extent. Don’t get me wrong, I liked that scene, and while IronMan suit’s thoughness was shown by the fact that he was unharmed, the point of showing him firing that missile and walking away without caring was not to point that out. It might’ve partially meant to show the power of his weaponry, but like you said, it could’ve been done in a more practical way. It seems like you’re defending that point or trying to find justification to it because you liked it, while probably the scene in the Host did not appeal to you so much… it’s understood, but I think you need to come to terms with that as-well; that moment in Ironman was of the same you refer to, style over practicality.
3 ‘Unfortunate side effects of a film’ are unfortunately sometimes the downfalls of a film, or elements that make it seem less serious or to be taken seriously. It reflects on lazy thinking. And yes, The Blair Witch also had that, but it wasn’t so painfully obvious and a whole lot more sporadic just enough to make it feel more believable and natural. In addition, the footage shown in BWP was not enhanced in any way in terms of special effects or editing… I don’t think it was either in Surround sound and the DVD does not include Subtitles… Cloverfield though… not only it is enhanced, it is way too polished for a camcorder… and yes, it is presented in 5.1 surround and very soon in Blue Ray True HD surround… Like you said it yourself, flash over movie practicality. And I totally understand why the camera turned on when it did for movie and audience purposes… unfortunately, the lack of thinking or innovation on the writers/director’s part, it felt too obvious and forced… and I know that you know this…
4. I like it sometimes too when movies leave an open ended final, like old-boy or Memento and few others of course and namely The Descent where people still argue whether the movie was real or a hallucination… but unfortunately for those movies, the means justify the end and the debates that follow… Unfortunately, Cloverfield’s indecisiveness to what it needed to be made it very difficult to swallow… It wasn’t really horror, it wasn’t really a monster movie, and it was polished so highly with marvel tech that while it’s a POV it fits into the action scifi genre… and what I was saying is that there is an explanation to what the monster is, it’s just that it’s not presented in the movie… it throws clues that Japan is somehow involved, but you have to read it from the viral websites that it was a Japanese satellite that crashed into the ocean and woken up that monster… and of course, conveniently to see it at the end footage that was not erased somehow. You had to read on the internet that this monster is actually a baby with a separation anxiety disorder, and again, somehow get a glimpse on the un-erased footage when Rob rewinds the tape, to see Rob on previous footage saying ‘it’s Japanese’ to hint that Japan has something to do with it… or that you have to read it online to know that this movie was somewhat of answer to Godzilla, as Godzilla blames the U.S. for Nuclear testing and its aftermath, Clovie is blaming Japan’s satellite for crash landing in U.S. That to me is unacceptable… a movie should provide those answers within it… not within the promotional viral buzz around it… it's lazy thinking and shameless gimmickry.
5 A lot of people that did not understand the purpose HyunSeo served felt like they were slapped in the face… HuynSeo while did not plan to kill herself, yet with her brave act and maternal instinct has saved the little boy… the same little boy that was earlier attack by the monster and had his brother died by the monster…. The Same boy that was conducting the ‘SeoRi’ (food theft for the sake of starvation) to reflect the way HyunSeo’s father, GungDo had to do when he was young in order to get proper nutrition… Hyun-Seo saved him, and while doing so, has given the boy a second chance at life and her father a second chance at being a good father… notice that at the end, the father’s appearance is different, more mature and composed… he instead of feeding the kid junk food, instant noodles and beer, actually being responsible and cooking a proper meal for him in order to provide him the life he should’ve had himself… So yes, HyunSeo’s death was sad, but had a purpose… not a typical Hollywood sugarcoated cliché.
6 Cloverfield definitely was better than the Host at achieving a sense of confusion… but I doubt that it is the positive kind… and while viewers ponder after Cloverfield as to what it was… I would not be caught dead in those threads trying to post what I think the monster was… it’s a gimmick… and very unrealistic one at that… I’m aware it’s scifi, and so was the Host… but within the realm of scifi that’s trying to be placed within a realistic setting… the Host achieved a level or horror and Panic far more real than Cloverfield… The Moster in the Host was actualized very well and felt very real… but Cloverfield…, even if we’re to believe that it came from the depths of the ocean… its sheer size, behaviour and resistance to virtually any weapon know seemed very unreal… The Host monster could’be been killed and was, which made the whole movie more compelling… so While Clovie achieved a great sense of Panic and confusion… that’s all it managed to achieve… The Host achieved a whole lot more… and that is why I believe it is considered a better technical movie… taste is a different issue… but on realistic parameters… it’s the Host.
7 I don’t mind debating, but as long as it does not turn into a pointless tirade… freedom of opinion and expression and sharing it is always welcomed… I do like the Host a lot, and I enjoyed Cloverfield as-well. I don’t think it’s a bad movie… but with all honesty, could’ve been done either better, or differently or both… I honestly cannot say this about the Host.
That's fair enough, perhaps i am nitpicking. I'll admit i don't watch too many foreign language films so perhaps it's just because i'm so used to the way America makes films that it's difficult for me to adjust to how Korea chooses to make a film like this. It's one of those films you either get on with or don't, there's a load of moments where some may get annoyed and others are blown away. Like i said i thought it was a good film, but i didn't see it as the remarkable masterpiece that critics hyped it to be. Each to their own hey :)
Beats me ... it wasn't very good. The monster was unimpressive, the acting was ludicrous, the usual government/military/bad science was sub par, the ending was unsatisfying. Even the comedy was lame and predictible.
There was nothing to recommend this movie. I give it a 3 because it was made in Korea and somehow made it to the Western market.
I'm quite curious about the standards of what constitutes "good acting" for all the people that say that this movie was "poorly" acted. I have the feeling some think great acting is Tom Hanks playing some annoying handicapped guy.
''Never trouble trouble till trouble troubles you."
It wasn't bad though...
then again, people don't always understand...
These threads are so stupid.
Its not about being American or Korean, its about being a film. The Host is my 2nd Korean film (after Oldboy) that I have ever watched but I simply love this film.
I like how it was not about the creature like most monster movies, but about the family and their rescue.
There were alot of comedic scenes that, although weren't outlound laughter, were more like awkward and satirical comedy on how people act.
The sad scenes really made me sad, some even cried.
I also liked how the movie had all these little twist and turns, I was never bored. The family was always in conflict and when they weren't, the movie dealt with the family relationship, only building up to the climaxes.