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.
shareDo you like South-Korean cinema in general?
sharewtf is wrong with you people...jesus rottentomatoes gave it a 93% who paid these people off??? im speechless.
Well, it could be a cultural difference as well. After all, to feel that the acting was bad, is something that definitely hints towards that direction.
shareI can only speak to the Americans (at least one was clearly Canadian, BTW) and they weren't very good. As far as the Korean actors, the style was lost on me.
sharewhat i love the most is people who start rumors and blame people for something they didn't do. A global conspiracy? OH NO! A global conspiracy hater? OH NO!
shareBecause it's very good, that's why. If you can't understand that, that's your problem, not the movie's.
"This are Nice shoes! Couldn't you afford some real Nike?"
Well said, Memories-Of-Murder.
In fact I was going to say the same thing myself, but seeing how I've played that card one too many times, I've abstained. However, seeing how you've mentioned this, I do find it quite disconcerting seeing just how many people who didn't like this movie resort to the 'why is this movie so popular', or 'how/why did this movie got such high ratings' lines. Is so funny that it almost borderlines retardedness. I mean seriously, if you go on reviewing any given movie, and you find out that it's extremely popular, and then you find that it has an exceedingly large amount of critical acclaim, wouldn't you think that there is a reason why it is so? Why beg the question you ask? It got 7.3 on IMDB and 93% on rottentomatoes.com, which means it's both popular and accepted as a movie that has a high artistic quality to it. It's simple, it's that popular because that many people liked it.
~~SPOILERS~~
I find neither popular opinion nor critical acclaim to offer sufficient incentive for me to like a movie that just doesn't appeal to me on the gut level. I'm willing to admit that there are a number of movies that I deeply despised ("Chariots of Fire" and "The Prestige" among them) for very personal reasons which probably go well beyond their technical/artistic excellence.
In the case of this movie, I was very disappointed. I can't say it was a "bad" movie -- it transcended the traditional horror film by examining human ineptitude and mass panic in the face of a creature that was not well understood, and the CGI effects were fairly good. But from earlier reports, I thought that the movie would be more of a black horror-comedy (ala "Shaun of the Dead"), so I was saddened to see the abundance of raw suffering and the death of the daughter after all of the family's valiant efforts.
There were other "plotholes" as well. Why dispose of the formaldehyde in the drain if it could have just as easily been picked up by toxic waste engineers (I assume Korea has this service available)for recycling? I assume this was done because the doctor who ordered it was a sadistic a-hole, but this was not made entirely clear. Also, why was there only one "host"? One would assume that the pollution would affect more than just one form of aquatic life. (Since I was laid up with a migraine during the viewing, maybe I missed something in that regard.)
I watch many horror films, most of them American but I also enjoy Italian, Spanish, and Japanese horror from time to time. This was not a "bad" film, it was just not a great film. I give it points for depicting the fact that when panic comes in the window, good sense goes out, in any event.
~Jan~
You despise "Chariots of Fire" and "The Prestige"??? Why? Are you in a quest to hate very good movies?
"This are Nice shoes! Couldn't you afford some real Nike?"
Contains already revealed spoiler...
I agree with Memories-Of-Murder and the others on this. It was a great flick. Yeah, it had a few holes, but what Sci-Fi monster flick doesn't if you think about them a lot.
But it was some first class entertainment of this genre. And yes it was very sad about the daughter, but it was supposed to be sad. Real life doesn't always turn out like a typical Hollywood film, which thankfully, this was not. Better yet, she died a hero, saving the little boy. Thanks for the alertless spoiler about that, btw.
I highly recommend this one.
AntelopeCA,
You not liking Chariots of Fire and the Prestige asides, many of this movie's disappointments occur due to false expectations. The truth is that this movie is probably best viewed as a dark satire with handful of socio-polivironmental commentaries masked as a monster movie. However black comedies and satires come in many forms, in your example, Shaun of the Dead was more of a Romantic-Comedy masked as a horror zombie spoof and it worked really well since it transcended very naturally and didn't feel forced. However if you take other satires or dark comedies like 'Mars Attacks' or 'You Kill Me' or the 'Analyze This/That' series into count you'll easily realize that many of them are not all that funny nor spoof-like funny as let's say the 'Scary Movie' series. I mean they're dark comedies and they are so for a reason. In addition, I understand your concern on the plot-holes, however (and this is hard to know unless your read on Wiki or a South Korean resident) the event that described in the beginning of the movie actually happened (almost to the letter depiction) in South-Korea in 2000. So bare in mind, the monster's creation revolves around that incident. Why this pollution has created one monster and not many, or why it happened at all, well those are not plot-holes, it's simply sci-fi plot device to progress the movie's commentary. After all the movie does revolve around the family trying to save the girl and the capture/destruction of this monster, but it's not the focus of it, rather plot devices for the actual commentary.
well said
shareI'll say the one thing that really put me off this movie...the sense of time. We are given very little information about the timeline. The little girl seems to be trapped for a few days, but the action of the family and the tests run on her dad seem to suggest weeks.
When the bow shooting sister falls into the pit, it seems as if days pass before we see her climb out (likewise with the brother falling off the bridge) but this cannot be the case. This is a problem. A sense of time is of crucial when telling a story and this film left me confused as to the time frame. Further complicating matters are the first few scenes which clearly establish the time via captions.
Bottom line...it is okay for someone to question why this movie is well received. Not everyone likes everything and, to tell the truth, I came here hoping to read some explanations of why people liked this film.
Thankfully there weren't too many responses claiming it was over my head if I failed to enjoy it.
I'll say the one thing that really put me off this movie...the sense of time. We are given very little information about the timeline. The little girl seems to be trapped for a few days, but the action of the family and the tests run on her dad seem to suggest weeks.
When the bow shooting sister falls into the pit, it seems as if days pass before we see her climb out (likewise with the brother falling off the bridge) but this cannot be the case. This is a problem. A sense of time is of crucial when telling a story and this film left me confused as to the time frame. Further complicating matters are the first few scenes which clearly establish the time via captions.
Bottom line...it is okay for someone to question why this movie is well received. Not everyone likes everything and, to tell the truth, I came here hoping to read some explanations of why people liked this film.
Thankfully there weren't too many responses claiming it was over my head if I failed to enjoy it.
First thing's first, the U.S. actors, or the Canadian one weren't bad, they were just made quirky on purpose for satire and the commentary.
In addition, yes, like Mr. D.E.M suggested, rewatch the movie and you'll see that's it' quite obvious that it was two days, or possibly 2 nights and 3 days, and beast killed on the third. The movie's style was conducted in that way to make the viewers think instead of spoon feeding them left and right. Some people don't even get the scene where they all eat in the snack shop while the little girl appears there too; people actually thought it was a movie goof!
Anyways, you wanted to know why people liked it...
I liked it because it was non generic, non formulaic and non cliché’s monster movie. I love it because it's a monster themed movie that doesn't even deal with the monster as the core story, rather uses it to convey some serious issues and commentary from the director, issues that reflect very well the South-Koran lifestyle, the public's fears, concerns, flaws, mannerisms. In addition, providing environmental commentaries that are a global concern even thought the threat is merely in one city. Commentaries on how officials tend to deal with disasters, what's at focus in their eyes, how scary the truth of all of it is, and ultimately who actually suffers the most because of it; in this case, the common helpless folk and nature. I felt sorry for this monster more than anyone else in this movie.
I love this movie because it managed to do all that while still being campy, quirky, funny, dramatic and horrific while maintaining the true feel of a monster movie. I love that the monster looked more real and better conceived than any monster in a monster movie since Alien/Jaws/Tremors. I love the fact that $10,000,000.00 worth could pull off what $250 million could not; the fact the director had the balls to pull the big guns and show this thing within the first 15 minutes of the movie. I love how it was shown, that it was in brought daylight, it was shown in full, in the shadow, in the light, in a trailer, behind trucks, running, jumping, slipping and falling, while camera shots from 360 degree angles (attention to the shot of the monster from the inside of a bus running on the bridge.)
And I love this movie because it gets better every time I watch it.
I felt sorry for this monster more than anyone else in this movie.Hopefully you had some handkerchiefs.
I love the fact that $10,000,000.00 worth could pull off what $250 million could not; the fact the director had the balls to pull the big guns and show this thing within the first 15 minutes of the movie.That's not a fact. Just your opinion.
cengelm,
It's so easy to be a sarcastic whore isn't it? Why not try to actually comprehend what I was saying instead of using it as a punch line for your attempt at witty insults.
As for your comments, the copy and repaste method... fine..
"Hopefully you had some handkerchiefs."
-Oooh, what a shocker, must've taken you days to come up with that one.
Also, who said I cried, I said I felt sorry for it more than any other character in the movie, with a small exception of the girl. In addition, the climatic sequence was constructed in such a way so that the audience will have certain empathy for the creature; had you understood the movie properly you'd know what I mean. Seeing clearly that you haven't had lead you to make these stupid comments. Live and learn..
"That's not a fact. Just your opinion."
-The statement that $10,000,000 pulled off more than 25 times the amount is A, fictitious statement mostly which carries a heavy amount of truth, and B, has been applied to this movie on many occasions and is one of biggest praises for this movie.
C. You have no idea how to put things in proper context. When I said that, it meant within comparative context of Monster movies. If you ask me if this has done a better job than the robots in Transformers, then I'd say no since the transformers were actualized very well (regardless of the thin movie plot.) However with comparison to Hollywood's biggest monster/creature movies out there, there are only a few movies (if any) that had achieved the level of realism a monster conveys such as it was presented in the Host. Jurassic Park might be an exception since it looked amazing, however the rest of the Hollywood attempts didn't look real at all, including King-Kong.
That might be an opinion, but it is a strong opinion that has generated a wide accord, agreement and following.
You can't deal, don't pots.
... attempt at witty insults.no insult intended.
That might be an opinion, but it is a strong opinion that has generated a wide accord, agreement and following.It's indeed popular. The genre monster movie always has a market and the quality of the competitors isn't very high and they are easy to beat. I don't appreciate ALIENS or JAWS too much, either. JAWS was even boring because of the long waiting.
"no insult intended."
-Fair enough. -
"It's indeed popular. The genre monster movie always has a market and the quality of the competitors isn't very high and they are easy to beat."
You've missed my point entirely. The Genre' movie always have a market, but that has nothing to do with me stating that by large opinions, the monster in this movie, while only cost $10,000,000, looked and felt more real than movies with a budget 20 times larger. Your point completely missed the argument I was making.
Then again, popularity is one thing, then again, why wasn't D-War as popular? Believe it or not, a lot of the times it's about the package rather than the prestige it carries along. And by competitors, you means the South-Korean Cinema? If so, I actually doubt that it's easy to beat. After all, Cloverfield didn't do the Job, and neither King-Kong. In fact, non of the great CGI and special effects of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy looked as real. They were impressive, big, expensive and loud, but not convincing, including Gollum. When I make the $250 Mil. versus the $10 mil comparison, those are the parameters I am talking about.
It might seem far fetched to see this movie as satire, but unfortunately for you, that is exactly what it meant to be. It mixed and bent a whole lot of genre's in it and it's all over the place, but the majority of the movie's core commentary and message was brought through satire.
And in what monster movies are the authorities seem inept? King-Kong? They seemed able to shoot down the ape. Godzilla remake? The authorities took it down within two hours. Aliens? What authorities, Tremors, same thing, Jaws, authorities didn't seem to be involved at all. Jurassic Park..? Seriously which monster movie were you referring to?
Also, the changes in tone are far from being a flaw, they are very deliberate and explicit. And this risky behavior by main characters, is typically annoying in formulaic movies because we expect better from the characters. And usually the heroes are not bumbling low-protein-deficiency fops such as in this one, and rarely are composed out of dysfunctional family and a bum. So yes, risky and stupid choices are fitting within the context of the movie.
Aliens? What authoritiesSome authority sent the troopers to the planet, iirc. Unfortunately I hardly watch monster movies. With efficient methods towards the monster(s) the monsters would be finished rapidly. Their size makes it easy to trace them.
Okay,
this is basically where I will end this discussion with you.
It doesn't appear that you comprehend what I am saying and seem to reply to something else, or perhaps persistently replying unknowingly to points I actually never argued.
The authorities that sent the troopers in Aliens did not seem inept, neither much of any seen in any other monster movies; if anything, they're hardly involved while the story focuses around the monster and the hero/group of people that fight against it, usually with all or most dying by resorting to typical and cliche'd and stupid course of action, while the Hero prevails. The Dysfunctional aspect of this family meant to be comical, yet realistic as it served as container for later social/political commentary. And I have no idea what you're going about with the 'other competitors', what relevance does that point carry anyways?
Dude you didn't like the movie, but it doesn't change it from being a remarkable piece of work, get over it.
P.S. King-King look very good, very polished and for most part, interacted very well with the surroundings. The problem is that it was polished too well, which lost some realistic aspect to it.
Dude you didn't like the movieI liked it but don't acknowledge its artistic quality. Most viewers I talked personally with were disappointed for other reasons (e.g. lack of chill and grit). But probably they will watch a sequel despite the complaints. share
For some reason my brother didn't like this movie, while I loved it. Other than the possible difference in taste I can only attribute this to the difference in amount of Asian films we watch. The most easily traced common denominator for people who don't like Asian made movies of any genre is that they simply don't watch many Asian movies, and the difference in storytelling/acting/culture/whatever just ruins the experience for them.
Of course I'm not saying it's like that for everyone, I concede that a lot of people probably just don't like what they see, but I still think that they would have a different experience if they had been immersed in that culture of film-making longer. I personally "get" Asian movies a lot more now than say 7 years ago when I first started watching them (started with Anime, and took quite a while for me to be able to genuinely enjoy live-action films) , as they are made and told in a completely different way than western movies.
Anyways, The Host is in my opinion a great movie, both as a monster movie and drama, with great acting, story and effects.
"What authorities" in Aliens? Are you kidding? Did you see the film? The whole basis of the plot is the dominance of Earth by mega-corporations such as Weyland-Yutani, and their utterly single-minded pursuit of profit, to the point of actively embracing self-destruction in the form of the Alien.
I'm sorry, but the fact that you have so badly misunderstood an extremely basic point of a classic movie completely invalidates your opinions regarding movie criticism. I suggest some serious thought and study before you take to these boards again.
How's this for a late comment.
"JAWS was even boring because of the long waiting."...cenglum
I think that says it all. Have people changed that much, or is it some people just can't recognize quality (even if it doesn't entertain them personnaly) when they see it?
"Intelligence is overrated. What's required is diligence. And the service of a willing spirit."
Shotor said:
"First thing's first, the U.S. actors, or the Canadian one weren't bad, they were just made quirky on purpose for satire and the commentary."
Wooden acting is not satire, they were bad.
DRQUINCY-1 said
"Wooden acting is not satire, they were bad."
If you want to see bad acting that meant to be considered good, watch D-War.
Furthermore, strategically selecting actors to deliver this 'wooden' performance as you point out to convey a specific reaction of 'what the hell' followed with rolling your eyes, all done to address certain political or social issues is considered satire. As I remember, there were 3 Caucasian actors in this movie, the scientist at the end (cross eyed), the soldier which didn't seem wooden at all, and the Scientist at the beginning, which did not feel wooden, but was kind of dronish'. Then again, he was supposed to be...
So just admit you are a fanboy and this debate is over. The performances sucked. You can pretend to find answers for bad acting all you want but the end result is a bad script, bad acting and a bad movie.
shareGuess we'll just disagree on that one. I thought it was a mess.
shareWhatever gave you the impression this film was a comedy? were any of the godzilla movies intentionally funny (awful voiceovers aside)?
share"Why dispose of the formaldehyde in the drain if it could have just as easily been picked up by toxic waste engineers"
You do realize that was inspired by a real case of an American doctor doing such a thing and being found guilty of it right? Why was there one host? Why was there one Jaws in the first movie?
I think you for lack of a better word do live inside a bubble. I mean Shuan of the Dead is your reference for dark humor. Which really isn't. Rather straightforward film that uses comedy as an excuse for a serious take on a zombie movie. Don't get me wrong it wasn't a serious movie, but it did try to have a serious and real story.
This movie was a true genre mixer. It did have dark comedy, the funeral scene. The complete lack of redeeming qualities of the protagonist. Was one of the most unique monster tales I've ever seen. The family had a reason to seek out this monster. They weren't seemingly indestructible and neither was the monster. The virus made it interesting. The family was hunting the monster, the government was hunting the family and the monster. Loser family, forced to take action. These characters are actually people you can sympathize with. They aren't scientists or super soldiers. They are real people. More flawed than most people, but still more relatable than most characters we see in these movies.
Whatever though, most people can't handle anything outside of the formula without even being aware of it.
Some say, boy you're always teasin, I think you best be leavin.
http://rokdrop.com/2008/03/18/gi-myths-the-2000-yongsan-water-dumping- scandal/
The bigger joke was the fact that every day on my walk to work from Bokwang-Dong (right on the river SE of Yongsan Garrison), I would pass auto repair shops that were draining used motor oil, coolant, and transmission fluid straight into the street or curbside drains – sewer and run-off drains that *did* run directly to the river without the benefit of waste treatment processing.
That's the nice thing about living in Korea (6+ yrs as of this writing) – if there's a way to blame your problems on someone else, the gov't, press, and people will beat that horse until it's WAAAAAAAY past dead.
In "The Host" (a k a "Gwoemul"), the mutagen is a simple aldehyde, HCHO (possibly even a radioactive variety). The movie opens in the year 2000 at the Yongsan U.S. Army base in Seoul, where an American mortician (the always superb Scott Wilson, clearly having fun) orders a Korean subordinate to dump dusty bottles of "dirty formaldehyde" into the sink ... which empties into the Han River. When the underling objects, the American insists, "The Han River is very... broad, Mr. Kim. Let's try to be broad-minded about this." Had Al Gore been present, he would have made a persuasive counter-argument with colorful charts and graphs about the dangers of poisoning our fragile planet, but an order is an order, so down the drain the noxious stuff goes.
(This scene is based on a notorious incident involving Albert McFarland, an American civilian mortician at the Yongsan military base, who in 2000 ordered his staff to pour 120 liters of formaldehyde into the morgue's plumbing. Although the chemicals passed through two treatment plants before reaching the Han, source of Seoul's drinking water, the scandal sparked an anti-American uproar in South Korea.)
"Why dispose of the formaldehyde in the drain if it could have just as easily been picked up by toxic waste engineers (I assume Korea has this service available)for recycling? I assume this was done because the doctor who ordered it was a sadistic a-hole, but this was not made entirely clear"
Well, I don't know about your other problems, but that part isn't a plot hole. It's 100% realistic -- because it's based on a real-life scandal. Some American officer actually dumped formaldehyde in the Han River. And if you were disappointed because the movie turned out not to have the upbeat ending you expected, that's too bad, but that's hardly a flaw -- it just means it isn't your kind of movie.
Whether you like the movie or not is up to you. But the 'plot holes' you complain about aren't valid.
The disposing of the formaldehyde is based on an event that ACTUALLY happened. In 2000, a Korean mortician working for the U.S. military in Seoul dumped a large amount of formaldehyde down the drain. That was one of the inspirations for the story. Most people who see this movie and complain that it is a stupid plot point don't realize it is based on an actual event.
A for why there was only one, this is something that most monster movies do. There was only one giant Shark in Jaws, one Reptilicus, one Godzilla, one Giant Mantis, etc. Perhaps the conditions needed to create the monster occurred at that one location and time - perhaps others died instead of mutating - perhaps natural predators ate them before they grew huge, perhaps it is the first and more will follow... it is not necessary to explain. I think most people can accept the idea that a set of circumstances caused the creation of a single mutated monster.
As for you 'expecting it to be a black comedy' and being disappointed it was serious, well, that has nothing to do with the quality of the movie. That would be like saying 'I was expecting Beverly Hills Cop to be a straight crime drama, I was disappointed to find that it had comedy' The Host never advertised itself as anything other than it is. I have watched a half a dozen trailers for it - Korean, American, International - I have seen half a dozen posters for it. None of those advertisements portray it as a comedy. There is in face a dark, comedic commentary on some political issues - such as agent orange - but that is done within the context of a serious movie.
That said, you can still dislike the movie. Everyone has opinions. Some don't like the downbeat ending. I can accept that. Some find the story quirky. Everyone has different tastes. But at least judge it on what it IS, and not on what it's NOT.
Exactly.
Because it's good!
I have to agree with mitch. I love Asian cinema, and I was really looking forward to watching The Host last night after all I have read and heard. I must say I was very disappointed. It started out great with the initial appearance of the creature but it all went terribly wrong after that. I don't get why this is rated so high, I guess everyone just has different tastes.
shareUnlike simila movies they show the monster in the beginning itself..but nothin special abt the movie..
may be the humor was lost in translation..but the story itself lacked muscles ..
I love Asian movies..i ve seen abt a million of them..this is not in da top 50...
I've actually seen quite a few Asian movies myself, well, South-Korean more than others, and I can definitely tell you that it's not the best that cinema has to offer. I mean, compared with 'Old-Boy', 'Memories of Murder' 'The Brotherhood of War' and 'Friend', 'The Host' definitely doesn't reach to that level of entertainment or the drama. However, it is the top grossing movie so far, and I believe it is so for the reasons of being so controversial, unique, unbalanced, a spectacle, and mostly for sticking to its guns and delivering exactly what it said out to deliver, something that not many movies do. Also, taken into consideration that sheer magnitude of this movie. The plot itself is not a masterpiece, but the monster itself is (at least to me.) The movie had some moments that dragged, I won’t deny that, it’s not all perfect (and no movie is), but with that said, when reviewing such a movie the sheer scale and intent behind should be taken into serious consideration, especially when moments that viewers felt were ‘too slow’/’drag’, ‘over-the top’, ‘rapid change of tone and mood’, etc… were all done deliberately, as opposing a directional movie flaw. So while it’s not as classic as ‘Friend’ it offers so much to audience that some even praise this movie for encompassing what would virtually take several movies to do. Though it’s a genre’ bender, I’d never par it with ‘Alien’ or ‘Jaws’, or even ‘Godzilla’. When I watched this movie ‘The Descent’ and ‘Shaun of the Dead’ came to mind.
Shotor u are very wise and very clever too,in one word well spoken. As long as viewers wanted to see "Host" as only pure horror movie than they will be disappointed and will never able to understand nor appreciates this rare horror/comdey/drama movie. Remember viewers korean directors unlike hollywood have short track of making sci-fi monster movies therefore I believe it is only fare for viewers to watch "Host" with open mind and give some slacks afteward.
share[deleted]
i watched this movie quite a few times. after some viewings, i found out some parts that made me laugh, such as in the beginning when the grandpa tells his son to resepect the customers and to next time not eat one of the legs and then takes the leg from his son and goes back into the car eating the leg. simply put, i think in order to comprehend the greatness of this movie, you have to pay really close attention.
sharei agree it was a terrible, horribly boring film
http://www.myspace.com/bboyneko
I wouldn't say it had a high rating, but anyway... I personally enjoyed it. I only bought it because I wanted to see a monster tearing up things and killing people, and I well and truely got that. I can understand why people are disappointed though, it was a shame about "Jurassic Park vs. Jaws!!" being printed all over the DVD box.
shareno one got torn apart..the monster swallowed them like spaghetti..there was like no gore
http://www.myspace.com/bboyneko
actually the monster did vomit up some skulls n bones. so maybe a little gore? haha.
its such a great film and entertaining that i dont care what other people rate this as. i'm just sorry OP cant enjoy the film as much as i do.
couldn't agree more - such a stupid useless film - i wanted to see it for a long time because some friends told me it was nice, but this film was *beep*
and soooo long- confusing and retarted.
I would agree that this movie shouldn't be a 93%, yet I do not think what you say is accurate enough to be components of a bad movie. Watch it over again, it has great commentary on American intervention, and a satire on environmentalism. It is your opinion to dislike the movie, and I of course, respect that, but I ask that you watch it again. Oh, and by the way, I would rate this movie a 7.9 out of 10.....
P.S. Most people who may like this movie like it because it came from a country that does not have a big movie budget like Hollywood does. So, in that sense, this movie is cutting edge.
i completely agree i was so let down i was in a *beep* mood the rest of the day. i don't see WHAT everybody thinks is so great unless they're like "OMGGG55555 D3WDS TH3RU5 TH15 N3W AS1AN MON5T3R M0V13 lets all go see it because for some reason we all love asian culture"
i think most asian movies i've seen so far through critical acclaim and hype are simply *beep* this is the exact same feeling i had after Oldboy.
not to mention the monster had a long unexplained abscence for about half an hour.
What completely surprises me is that, yes, ok. It is alright to hate a movie that most find good. Not a problem with that, never has been never will. Only fools will hate you for hating something they rather enjoyed. But to add to that, so what. You hate the movie but you have to come here and ask why is it popular? Ok so a large percent of people find it enjoyable, you on the other hand are in the group that didn't. Cool, but don't come here and ask why is it rated so high like its some kind of government conspiracy. Do you want a prize for hating something others like? Do you want attention? I normally don't talk like this to people, just the wrong place at the wrong time.
In short, yeah it's ok to hate it, but don't go around asking why, oh why, do others find fun in something I do not. Maybe we just didn't think so hard on it?
I know I, just watched the movie because I wanted to watch a movie, and I was surprised by how fun it really was. It was fresh, something different from the normal peep show that appear on t.v.
Also, to add, I don't hate you, just hate the way your acting.
Also, haha, oh no the monster had an absence from the movie for a half an hour. I guess you need a monster to get your fix on horror. Excuse the monster if he has other things to be doing like eating fish or something.
IMDB is THE funniest place on the net.
i enjoyed your flawless grammar, but not your sarcasm. i know you hated the host just as much as i did.
shareHi, sorry for the late post. Great reply by the way CorneliusHeather. I saw a snippet of this film on Youtube recently and thought that it was a brand new movie. My buddy actually had the DVD and we watched it last week. I was thoroughly entertained by it and as you had mentioned, was surprised at how much fun this was to watch. Looking forward to Host 2.
Tom
If all you can say about a movie is that it is "dumb" and "retarded," do not, for the love of god, post on any message board. Are you really that uncreative? I mean you expect me take anything you say remotely seriously? What does it mean when a movie is retarded? That just does not make any sense. Listen I understand that we are all entitled to our own opinions, but lets at least make a bit of an effort to make our opinions a bit cohesive and understandable. If you dislike this move I could really give less of a #$%&, but make sure that you are able to muster up some reasons as to why you think that. My little 9 year old cousin could give me a better set of reasons as to why he dislikes something, not to mention that when he dislikes something for no apparent reason its cute, because--thats right--hes *beep* 9, I'm sure that most people who post on this are older than 13 years old so its simply pathetic and totally uninteresting. So to all of you out there who the the internet unfortunately gives a voice to, try, just try to make a somewhat intelligent remark.
shareNo one paid them off. The reason no one paid them off is because it's a great movie with plenty of action and excitement and great acting. One of the best monster movies I've seen in a long time. I'm dying to know what you think is a great movie compared to this...
shareYep movie was really crap and weird. And the pacing was terrible.
share