We saw “The Host” (South Korea) today and it is hard to write about it without sounding like a flack for Magnolia Pictures. KO A-sung, a fifteen year old actress who plays a middle school student grabbed by the title monster gives a starmaking performance if ever there was one. BAE Doo-na is a very beautiful and expressive actress—her eyes are almost a special effect in themselves, as startling as the eyes of Emmanuelle Beart or Bette Davis—and she is terrific here. She is heartbreakingly good in everything I have seen her in. SONG Kang-ho is a real movie star. This is the fifth film we have seen him in—he simply disappears into his character like very few stars can.

Its score may be the best part of “The Host” and I hope it is available as a CD. Cinematography, editing and all other tech credits were outstanding. Director BONG Joon-ho said in an interview that he couldn’t do as many monster shots as he wanted due to budget restraints—even so the monster was properly scary and repellent.

But it isn’t really a monster movie as such. The evils are bureaucracy (both Korean and American), petty tyrants (ditto), the horror of being a client state occupied by the armed forces of another country, the frightening combination of military power and stupidity shown by the United States are worse than the monster. It is also about the indelible ties of family and culture, the unbreakable bonds between parents and children, the ability of otherwise undistinguished people to become heroes in the face of evil and the nobility of striving to overcome a crippling affliction.

It is worth seeing in a movie theater—the sound effects and score are what digital sound was made for.

A really good movie

ewaffle wrote:it is hard to write about it without sounding like a flack for Magnolia Pictures.

What about Showbox Entertainment, the South Korean production house, who originally produced the film? Magnolia Pictures are just an American distributor who mean pretty much zip to the majority of us out here in "the rest of the world" -- I give props to Showbox for financing and making the film in the first place.

Saw this too, excellent movie and lots of fun! Agreed on Kang Song - he is awesome... hilarious and heartbreaking at the same time. A definite must see, especially in the theater.

What about Showbox Entertainment, the South Korean production house, who originally produced the film? Magnolia Pictures are just an American distributor who mean pretty much zip to the majority of us out here in "the rest of the world" -- I give props to Showbox for financing and making the film in the first place

Not daring to sound like yet another insular North American who doesn't know every detail of the production history behind every film I see (which is, I'm afraid, sometimes the case), I nonetheless gave props to Showbox—at least in my own mind —for producing something as enjoyable as THE HOST when I saw it last year at the film fest and the Magnolia news hadn't yet broken. Now, though, I'll join Ed in giving props to Magnolia as well, for releasing the film unadulterated and actually having a small measure of theatrical success with it in this little unimportant part of the world when I actually feared they might blow it. Hopefully it will expand into Canada so I can see it again! It's hardly a slap to Korea or Showbox to give a simple offhand credit to the company that made it possible for this particular "rest of the world" to see it on the big screen, uncut, and in the original language, to boot. I'm sure Showbox got their cut up front, and more power to them in making more great movies like this one (and more of the crappy ones they've done, too) in the future.

Now if the Weinsteins had gotten their hands on it...

Nice thoughts, Ed.

Mike Thomason wrote:

ewaffle wrote:it is hard to write about it without sounding like a flack for Magnolia Pictures.

What about Showbox Entertainment, the South Korean production house, who originally produced the film? Magnolia Pictures are just an American distributor who mean pretty much zip to the majority of us out here in "the rest of the world" -- I give props to Showbox for financing and making the film in the first place.

I will have to confess that I have on more than one occasion written things--here and other places--that aren't meant to be taken 100% literally. This was one occasion. By writing what I did (quoted above by Mike Thomason) I was trying to accomplish at least three goals: express how much I was captivated with "The Host" using a bit of shorthand which I see now that I should have avoided; take some of the gee-whiz quality out of my remarks, every third word of which is a over-the-top adjective (wonderful, terrific, outstanding, excellent, beautiful) and which are used so much that they lose their meaning, and; give some form to an otherwise shapeless post.

express how much I was captivated with "The Host" using a bit of shorthand which I see now that I should have avoided

Your shorthand was fine. Avoidance wasn't necessary.

THE HOST is one of those movies that can leave people feeling rather hyperbolic after the first viewing!

(I loved it and I actually thought it had minor flaws!)

Don't get me wrong! I can appreciate just as much as anyone else when a "foreign" film gets a widespread release in my home country (The Host is doing the theatrical rounds here at present thanks to local distributor Madman Entertainment), but on the other hand I've gotten to a point where "domestic" releases of "foreign" are passe to me thanks to the availability of near any film on DVD online.

I don't have to wait donkey's years anymore just to see a movie I've read reams about -- it's at my fingertips and the click of a mouse away. And I don't mind seeing a new film from another place, for the first time, in the comfort of my own home (as I have a HUGE screen at home and a kick-ass sound system) because at least I am seeing it! Trust me, if I had waited to see any number of films I really wanted to see...I'd by and large still be waiting 'til now and, bar a handful of genre titles, probably wouldn't have seen anything out of the Asian regions over the last half decade or more.

It's because I'm not dependent on "domestic" pickups or release patterns that I am somewhat dismissive of such things, as well as more prone to heap praise on the original filmmakers and bodies involved than anyone else in the collective consumer chain. For the record, I saw The Host my first time around as an inflight movie on Singapore Airlines...and I liked it too.

I think I understand where you're coming from, Mike. It's just that, based on review and forum contributions here, and uploads of import DVD screenshots and portraits for database entries that really need them, it's probably safe to say that a lot of us in this region—a region which occasionally seems to earn your scorn—are no more or less dependent on domestic distributors that you are, and actively get our goodies online and watch them on excellent home systems.

However, if we do desire the occasional viewing of a popular Asian film like THE HOST on big screens within driving distance of our homes before even the official DVD release from Korea (in this case)—and in a properly-tuned theatre with a properly-attuned audience, a communal experience which can trump home viewing hands down when it's done right—then we are indeed reliant upon domestic distributors to make that happen, and hopefully not screw it up with cuts and dubbing, as some so often have. And when they do it right, they deserve some credit, faceless bureaucracies though they may be!

I'd estimate I watch around 98% of my "foreign" cinema at home, either alone or with my girlfriend, and I suspect that's the case for most of us who take the time to post in these forums, but I refuse to completely give up on the theatre experience, despite its unavoidable flaws. Here in Canada, I'm largely stuck with limited runs of films like THE HOST and TYPHOON (which actually played here briefly on just one multiplex screen near a Korean enclave) or the annual film festival, for which ticket prices are nearly double the regular rate, but these nonetheless represent rare and irresistable opportunities to movie buffs, and sometimes we just feel like sharing the joy!

Running a little off topic: I LOVE seeing my kind of movies (of the Asian variety) in cinemas! But sadly, due to my geographical location, that's no longer an option -- Perth's two Chinese language cinemas closed down at the end of last Millennium and the predominantly foreign language cinemas won't and don't run Asian films when they have the chance. Indeed, with the passing of the one man who actively supported Chinese language film (almost to the point of bankruptcy), that I would have counted as a kindred spirit when he was alive, there is no cinematic outlet here anymore for any fan of HK cinema. Thus, when I'm in Sarawak I grab every opportunity to catch whatever new film I can -- and I see them in the cinemas.

Per: American "scorn" -- perhaps a bit of a harsh conclusion in present company as well as the medium of these forums. There is a contingent out there in cyberspace that seem to operate on the misguided notion that ANY kind of foreign film hasn't really "made it" or "proved its worth", unless it has somehow garnered notice or playdates in the US. Thankfully, there is none of that here and such condescending (as well as imperialist) behaviour is all but an alien concept in these hallowed halls. I won't deny that it doesn't exist elsewhere, nor will I deny that it's the kind of insular behaviour that really puts my nose out of joint -- but let's leave those assumptions and allegations to sit where they lay. I made a simple comment drawn from personal opinions and feelings -- maybe not the best thing to type in present company, and sincere apologies for any offense caused by the remark. Just credit where credit is due, that's all.

Anyway, back on topic: time to talk more about The Host and what an enjoyable big-budget monster-fest-cum-family drama that it is.

Anyway, back on topic.

Almost!

Boy, I sure agree location can mean a lot in these situations. I used to drive three+ hours to see imported cinema on the big screen (including THE HOST), since my little city had no Chinese cinema resources at all beyond donations to the local library! Pretty sad. Had to make rather costly weekend mini-vacations just to indulge my addiction, really, and thank goodness for friends in the city who could provide free room and board. Otherwise, I'd have missed out on a lot of cool shows.

Just credit where credit is due, that's all.

Likewise.

There is a contingent out there in cyberspace that seem to operate on the misguided notion that ANY kind of foreign film hasn't really "made it" or "proved its worth", unless it has somehow garnered notice or playdates in the US. Thankfully, there is none of that here and such condescending (as well as imperialist) behaviour is all but an alien concept in these hallowed halls.

So true. I don't now if it's just me, but I can last about five minutes browsing the forums at IMDB—probably a worst-case offender—before I simply have to go somewhere else. And while these forums aren't exactly free of condescension, I'd have to agree that imperialist attitudes are indeed pretty scarce.

As "present company" likely includes me (or maybe just me!), I'll say that my own scorn is frequently (or pathologically, as someone else here once joked offline ) reserved for American companies like TWC, Dragon Dynasty and their various hangers-on, who really do have rather mixed track records with the Asian cinema they profess to adore, or more recently and in a far more humourous vein, Asian (or any other) celebrities who bag silly photo ops in third-world countries, instead of other folks on the board. But then again, on issues like those, I'm usually countered by superior viewpoints or left to foam at the mouth for a few larfs.

Thanks for giving us a little credit, though! I can easily imagine a discussion like this devolving into much snarkier, smilies-&-italics-ridden pissing matches at certain other Asian-cinema-related forums! (Speaking of smilies! HA!!).

Sometimes those are more fun to read, though...

I thought The Host was fairly good, but I didn't like the (UK) packaging that kind of rams the "Mankind has made his newest predator" angle - I prefer to find these things out when I watch them rather than know beforehand. It's only a small thing - after all, you pretty much suss it in the first scene, but I'm getting tired of the assumtion that we've got to know everything about a film before we see it so we can avoid it if it isn't just the kind of film we expect it to be.

Mind you, I find this kind of film better on second viewing anyway.

I thought The Host was fairly good, but I didn't like the (UK) packaging that kind of rams the "Mankind has made his newest predator" angle

I remember watching two different American trailers for THE HOST, one which played up the humourous "dysfunctional family unites" angle, and another, more serious one that banged out the standard "But now..." intensity-intensity-intensity routine like something built for a typical summer blockbuster. The former was by far the better ad, as it nailed the film's mix of flaky wit and pounding thrills, while the latter just paraded the thrills across the screen. But I often wonder if the latter ad was responsible for drawing more people to the cinema on the promise of seeing a rampaging wall-to-wall monster fest, which THE HOST is, well...not.

Brian Thibodeau wrote:But I often wonder if the latter ad was responsible for drawing more people to the cinema on the promise of seeing a rampaging wall-to-wall monster fest, which THE HOST is, well...not.

Very very probably, I'd say. In fact, I can almost hear people saying "that was crap, hardly any monster at all!" after watching it. I'll bet there's going to be a US remake that will be infinitely more gung-ho.

Some SPOILERS below

I seem to be in the minority of opinions on this film. I thought it was too scattered and unfocused throughout much of its run time. It starts off quite nicely, then about a third of the way through too much stuff is going on at once, and almost none of it is as well-executed as the opening scenes.

For example, I thought the opening attack sequence was very interesting. It also was actually shot in a way which is fairly unique - it's much longer than a sequence like this usually is in a monster film (which is the genre I'd put The Host in, if barely), and much of it focuses on groups of people running rather than on the monster itself. Nice idea, and it works.

A lot of stuff later on just seems strange. Like the surgery on the main character - it just comes out of no where. And the final fight against the monster - what the hell is up with that? It was so random, and the slow motion added nothing. It reminded me of older Hong Kong films, and how they juggled a cajillion ideas and always dropped a few of them - but the juggling was so fast and impressive the films worked anyway.

Unfortunately, The Host drops a few, and the juggling is very slow.

I thought the scenes with the US military were just odd. I don't care if the US military is portrayed negatively in a film by any means, it just seemed completely arbitrary in this film. Maybe it works better if you live in Korea, I don't know.

That's not to say some of the film didn't work in the later parts..

I actually thought that the scattered sequences of family drama were probably the most effective in the entire film, which I was quite surprised by. Particularly good is the scene where the father talks to his unconcious son. Extremely moving and great acting.

I also really liked the main character of the film. He was a very interesting character, and one I sympathized with a good deal.

Overall, I have very mixed feelings about The Host. I wouldn't call it a bad film, but I wouldn't call it a good one either.

I actually thought that the scattered sequences of family drama were probably the most effective in the entire film, which I was quite surprised by. Particularly good is the scene where the father talks to his unconcious son. Extremely moving and great acting.

Absolutely. I also tend to think some of the film's best comedy is in these scenes, such as the the one where the father talks about his sleeping son to his other two kids, and ends up boring them to sleep as well, or the scene in the funeral home where the standard-issue Korean-style mourning is taken to new heights of hysteria; this dysfunctional family doesn't just cry together, they bawl, flail around on the floor like babies, start fighting, attract media attention and have to be pulled apart by local officials! Eventually, Song Kang-ho falls asleep (a running gag) while scratching his balls. Pristine stuff!

You have to give credit to Bong Joon-ho for keeping the film so Korean-centric in its approach to character relationships and the ubiquitous Korean-style melodrama (which actually takes a good kick in the slats in this film), rather than proceeding down the traditional "monster movie" road with heroic scientists and pretty "experts" uniting to take on the monster, in effect pandering to the inevitable international audience that existed for this film. The fact that the dysfunctional family that is united to fight the beast remains dysfuntional at the end of the film (witness the final scene with Song and another character in the little noodle shack, with the rest of the family likely scattered again, possibly for good) is almost a stroke of genius in comparison to so many movies where you can suss out the "family dynamic" that will be in place by the end of the film, especially in American monster/disaster movies where the heroes are usually a single man, a single woman, and an orphan child that serve to reestablish the "nuclear family" model by the end of the film, thus reaffirming American traditional "western" values that aren't really that true at all anymore (and in SPITE of Washington always carping about the "bad" influence of the movies on society at large).


I'd also agree about the strangeness of parts of THE HOST. Especially the surgery scene you're talking about, which was just plain bizarre (but did have a good punchline when Song Kang-ho finally breaks out of the truck). I also felt the climax was a bust, too. While I could just barely overlook the unconvincing fire effects on the creature (after all, this IS still relatively new territory for Korean film industry, although I recall those effects being outsourced to the states, which makes their weakness all the more glaring), I couldn't understand how a creature that consistently retreats to the water to evade authorities wouldn't simply retreat to the water during the final battle, since the water is literally a few meters away. That has bugged me since I saw it. The filmmakers really needed to invent a way to at least get the creature a little further inland, so it could logically have no avenue of easy escape during the attack. Placing the climax at the water's edge, and having the creature fight to the bitter end, contradicts the creature's instincts as they're displayed throughout the film.

I thought the scenes with the US military were just odd. I don't care if the US military is portrayed negatively in a film by any means, it just seemed completely arbitrary in this film. Maybe it works better if you live in Korea, I don't know

I'd agree here, too. Some big-name critics world-wide (NOT just in the U.S., either) have taken pains to point out the film's "anti-U.S.-military" stance, or whatever they're calling it this week, but I really can't see how a film set in South Korea, which has a U.S. military presence, couldn't at least include references to that fact. And sure, many Koreans do indeed have a dim view of that military presence in their country, and so the film nods to those feelings, but the treatment here simply isn't harsh enough to be called "anti" anything! Scott Wilson's character at the beginning is just strange, as is Paul Lazar's cross-eyed medical interrogator character. In fact, I'd say the U.S. military is given a WORSE rap in many of the more intelligent atomic monster/alien invasion movies of the 50's, 60's and 70's to which the host owes much of its existence than they are in THE HOST itself. In those films (THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL comes to mind, but there are better examples eluding me at the moment) the military is sometimes the source of the problem, but more often the catalyst for disasters that might not have happened had they not had itchy trigger fingers.

In spite of it all, I loved the movie, and I'm still quite impressed that it gained screen-time outside of it's intended domestic audience without suffering the editorial simplification of its character relationships, the removal of its cultural specificities, or a Big Dumb American Remake™ before being unceremoniously dumped on DVD!