SPLATTI: Highlight the area below. I've got a question for you about the movie:

Start of SPOILER:

First, I would have maybe liked the movie more, if the audience was supposed to feel bad for the monster. The movie was deceiving because in the beginning, I felt bad for this little tadpole creature that got a dose of toxins. The director sets the movie up that one feels bad for the sea creatures living in the water. So throughout the movie I was expecting it to be King Kongish, so that we feel sympathy for this monster. At one point, I thought the monster was letting the girl live to keep the monster company. But it was obviously not so.

Second, the retard main actor gets his head drilled into, but nothing happens to him? Did he get smarter? Or did they not actually go with the surgury process?

Third, I understand that this might have been a comedy, but what is up with the overacting of emotions, such as during the funeral scene - was that done for comedy or was that supposed to be serious? Seriously bad acting.

Fourth, I'm sick of this retarded-looking main Korean actor.

End of SPOILER

Agree it was OK, not great... but I would not say that the effects were great as some have. I thought the "hosts" looked like crap...

Not that I donīt mind the focus on the characters and the drama, BUT in this case I think Iīd like the movie more if it was just a kickass monsterflick with a high gore factor.

I noticed that Yes Asia now has the host listed as a January 16, 2007 release date.

Really? I LOVED it. I'd put it up there as one of my favorite films of the year, right along side Children of Men, Pan's Labrynth and Departed.

I didn't find it to be predictable, or typical at all - like

Sure there is some logical weirdness to it, and a couple things that don't make sense and/or aren't addressed - but it's minimal, didn't bother me at all (and could be explaing away fairly easily).

As for the "overacting" that you KEEP mentioning, there's really only ONE scene where that happens, and even there, I think it's done for slight comedic effect to take the edge of what would've been too sombre of a scene.

I could go on, but I'll let this review say it for me, as I agree with it 100%
http://www.beyondhollywood.com/?p=1312

You know, it will be a difficult concept for a lot of people to acknowledge, but one of the primary reasons for not enjoying movies is because of our own mistaken expectations and misconceptions.

I would not perhaps go as far as to say it's our fault, but we must take the blame to a certain extent.

Why? Because a lot of us just listen to hype, read the hyperbolic tag lines in movie magazines and watch the trailers - those are the marketing tools, people!

Those are written and put together either by the people with a vested interest in making money from the movie, or by hack writers looking to get their name or magazine on the movies poster.

There are people who's job it is to find a hook to market this movie, and the most obvious hook is a monster movie. Now those who have seen it will know it is not just a monster movie, it covers many different genres.

And it's not difficult to do a little basic reading from reputable sites and film magaines, you can get an accurate flavour of the intention and content of the movie, whilst being careful to avoid spoilers of course.

And it's clear from a lot (though not all) of the comments on here that this applies to a lot of people. Comments like, it was confusing, the screenplay was bad, it made no sense - and wanting it to be a kick-ass monster movie.

I love it when people try to second guess writers, and when scenes don't progress in a logical and linear fashion they think it's bad writing.

This is not a movie that lays it all out in an easy-to-understand fashion, it does not always provide clear explanations for what is going on - it's not a new concept, it is supposed to encourage you to use your own imagination and leave an air of mystery. It's certainly not that the writers have just forgotten to tie up all the loose ends, it is obviously deliberate.

For some unfathomable reason, a lot of people seem to have a problem with mixing genres, which this movie did - it had elements of a monster movie sure, but it also touched on family drama, conspiracy theories, political drama and a healthy dose of humour. But there is a large section of the public that seem to have a problem with this, they want someone to encapsulate their movies in a very short sentence - tell them it's a monster movie, ok, that conjures up a certain genre in their minds. Tell them it's a monster, comedy, conspiracy, drama, family political movie and that just does not compute, that is not an easily identifiable genre for them.

So my point is, do a little basic reading beyond the usual hype people, know what you're in for and you are less likely to be dissapointed. If you think the movie is not for you, then don't watch it.

That way if you watch it knowing full well what the movies intentions are, you can come on here and critiscise the movie for what it IS, not what it ISN'T.

ps - I loved it!

FWIW, this movie most reminded me a lot of Save My Green Planet. Mainly because of the genre-bending - although there were some other plot details that were similar but I'm too lazy to spoilerize. For me, this movie was a totally blind watch, a friend lent the bare disc to me with no explanations. So, with no preconceptions, I really liked it a lot.

Tell them it's a monster, comedy, conspiracy, drama, family political movie and that just does not compute, that is not an easily identifiable genre for them.

Here are some of those multi-genre monster films that have already existed: Independence Day (monster, comedy, conspiracy, drama, family, political), Aliens (monster, conspiracy, drama, family, political), Brotherhood of the Wolf (monster, conspiracy, drama, political,and more mixed genre elements), Akira (monster, comedy, conspiracy, drama, family, political), Godzillas (monster, comedy, conspiracy, family, political), 28 Days Later (monster, conspiracy, drama, family, political), Shaun of the Dead (monster, comedy, conspiracy, drama), Evil Deads (monster, comedy and more mixed genre elements), Dawn of the Dead (monster, comedy, conspiracy, drama), They Live (monster, comedy, conspiracy, drama), etc....

There is nothing original or groundbreaking about The Host, regardless of its hype. And there is nothing confusing or out-of-the-ordinary about the film either. In the typical horror film genre itself, there is nothing surprising about these types of films having non-Hollywood endings - meaning a non-happy ending or a everyone-dies ending. Good guys dying in the movie, regardless of what age they are, is typical and expected in horror/monster films.

The Host is just an entertaining popcorn flick, but I wouldn't call it deep with tons of messages in it. If this movie is considered deep and full of messages in it, than any movie can be interpreted as the same.

That sounds about right, I was just about to jump all over JM1 message but you summary is just as good.

He "loved it" therefore our opinions of thinking it was not all that great is of little importance. I have seen over 1000 yes 1000 foreign films all kinds shapes and sizes. This one is just average no matter how you try to justify our expectations and misconceptions, of which I do not have any misconceptions about "what" the film was supposed to be.

I think some of you guys need to go back and read my post again...

- I did not claim that movies that mix genres are unique or different

- the examples you have given are ridiculous - these are clearly popcorn movies that definitely have their action and obvious and 'straight' comedy elements clearly to the fore - you can draw some parallels, but aesthetically they are not the same.

- I am challenging the opinions of some on here (I did not name any names) yes, because it's clear they expected a particular type of movie and didn't get it.

- I know that the majority on here are the sort of movie buffs that will make sure they know what they are in for, but not all. I was making a general point about why we often seem to trash movies and call them bad, terrible, awful etc because it wasn't what they wanted - simply because they fell for the hype. I have donr it myself and will freely admit it - two examples...Royal Tennenbaums and Lost In Translations. Cannot explain why, but they just went over my head and I did not see what the fuss was about. But I am willing to admit that my expectations may have been incorrect, or I was not in the right mood, maybe I was distracted - don't know, but I am not going to critiscise or trash those movies because maybe I will watch them in the future and all will become clear.

- I still firmly believe that as long as you go in to a movie with open eyes, you can come out and say it wasn't for you, but recognise that there may be some on here that still want to see the film and may be unfairly put off by some of these comments.

-

I didn't like The Host much either. It was a disappointment to me. Not because of the online/critical buzz so much but because I thought Bong Joon Ho's Memories of Murder was so brilliant... a much better film, IMO. Personally, I think the mixing of genres does more to hurt The Host than to help it.

Just saw that the gift set is available at xploitedcinema. I ordered from dvdfromkorea. I should have waited perhaps.

http://xploitedcinema.com/catalog/ho...s-p-11026.html

I'd give "The Host" about a 7/10 myself. Dynamite 1st 25 minutes of so, slowed down in the middle by the pacing and some awkward (for me, at least) comedy, picks it up with enough of a finale. I have nothing against genre-mixes (loved "Save the Green Planet"), and I appreciate the filmmakers attempt to do something different with what could be a standard "monster-on-the-loose" story. I agree with the criticism of the comedic funeral scene: it didn't make me laugh, didn't make me sad, just left me with a "WTF?!?" reaction that completely pulled me out of the movie and the plight of the characters. Maybe it's a culture thing -- I've seen a number of Asian movies I've liked overall, but with some comedic sequences that completely missed the mark with me. But overall a solid-enough effort for me to give it an above-average score.

We all try not to, but it's almost impossible not to be affected by a movie's hype. It's not a matter of researching a movie properly, or making a conscious decision to go in with open eyes. If I read a rave review about a movie, that gets my attention. If the movie was not on my radar, now I'm thinking "Hey, this could be good. I might want to check it out." If I read a bunch of raves reviews, damn if I don't go in expecting a good movie. I can't "unremember" the raves I already read, or switch off the part of my brain that was drawn to the movie in the first because of how much other people liked it. I like to think I try to be open-minded about movies I haven't seen before. But if I see a movie critics rated a 10/10, and I think it's about a 5/10, I come out of the theater feeling more negative than a movie the critics pegged as a 1/10, but I thought it ended up being the same 5/10 as the first movie.

JM1,
I'm glad you enjoyed it. I can barely stay awake during most recent Asian flicks due to the poor screenwriting, arty or blockbuster. The last really good Korean movies that pulled me in with story and were actually touching were The Way Home and Old Boy.

Errrmmm...it may just be me I know, UK/US translation and all that but...

Say what?

You're from the UK ... OK, I'll try to use little words then

Just a bit of a response to what you posted earlier. With you criticizing people who didn't like "The Host" because either they didn't research the movie enough, or didn't go in with "open eyes". I don't agree with that. Many of us would have never heard of "The Host" in the first place (and then watched) if it wasn't for the hype. And hearing that hype, it's just natural to have high expectations. You can talk about going in with "open eyes", but I can't believe there isn't a bit of your brain that has a preconceived notion about the movie. Rave reviews are a bit of a double-edged sword: they draw your attention to movies you might otherwise overlook. But they also make you more critical. You loved it - great! I still thought it was pretty good. But I have a feeling if I saw "The Host" without hearing anything about it, I'd feel more enthusiastic about it than I do now.

In other words, you listened to the hype.

I don't agree that hype naturally heightens your expectations, because we have been let down by that hype time and time again and frankly we should be smarter than that.

I conciously avoid hype and seeing and hearing too much about movies, especially ones I want to see.

Being a movie buff does not mean you have to devour every bit of information thrown at you by the media and marketing people.

But if you like the hype then that's fine, personally I don't choose to form my opinions or pay money to see a movie, simply because the people who are paid to sell the movie to me tell me I should go and see it because it's great.

If there was no hype for "The Host" I would have never heard of it, and I would never have seen it. And I liked the movie. So overall the hype was good. Hearing positive buzz and having a slightly lesser reaction to the movie is better than not seeing the movie at all. How can you consider the hype that directs you to something you would have missed to be a bad thing?

Do you think the people hyping "The Host" are paid to sell the movie to us? The hype I get is coming from fans ... people like you who say they "love it". Are the producers of "The Host" paying you for your comments on this forum? That's why I give those comments some credit. I hear a bunch of people who are fans of the same movies I like (or critics whose opinions I respect) giving something a rave review. That builds my enthusiasm to see a movie. Are you honestly saying you don't ever do the same thing? I think you're mixing up two things. In your posts you seem to be attacking the hype that the producers create. That they get through advertising, through a good trailer, through an internet site, through coverage by television/magazine/internet entertainment journalists. I agree ... movie fans who go just by that are suckers. This is clearly not the case for "The Host" hype (at least outside of Korea).

How do you decide which movies are worth paying for? The way you describe it, you analyze the production crew and storyline, and ignore all other information. I don't do that, and I'd bet most people don't. Sure there are a handful of directors and actors that make a movie a "sure bet" for me. And the nature of some stories alone may be enough to get my money (like if it was based on a book I love). For the majority of movies, that isn't enough. I listen to what other people think who have seen it. Of course everyone has their own opinions, and you have to keep that under consideration. If a movie seems to have a subject matter that sounds interesting, and people that have seen it all say its great, that could push me to paying to see it. In this case, of course I have heightened expectations ... that's the whole reason I chose to pay for this movie (I'm hoping to see something I like).

Anyway, sorry to the rest of DVDTalk for taking this thread off topic. I think I've said my piece to the best of my ability, and clearly some people are still going to misunderstand me, disagree with me, or just call me stupid. But I promise to keep any further posts in this thread to the topic of "The Host" and/or its appearances on DVD

Brainee, to be more precise it's not the producers of films that are selling the film to us - they obviously want the film to do well, but here's the problem...

The publicity and promotion, effectgively the 'selling' of a movie is handed over to an independent company who's job it is to find ways of selling the movie, looking at aspects of the film to promote, something to hook on to. They will take the most obvious elements and heighten them, and leave other elements that may confuse the majority.

And that's the crux of the problem right there - a lot of movies are mis-sold and mis-represented by this hype and publicity, because the bottom line is getting bums on seats by any method. Because the money has become so important now, movies are packaged and sold to the lowest common denominator.

We know that The Host is not just a monster movie, but the popular press and critics will sell it as such because it's easier to sell - they know that people will want to know the answer to a basic question "what is it about?". Tell them it's a monster movie, they will say "Uh, ok, got it". Tell them it's essentially a dysfunctional family drama involving a mysterious monster with elements of political drama, conspiracy theory and black comedy and they will probably say "Excuse me?".

Not everyone, sure. Yourself and most of the people on this board I am sure are broad minded and adventurous enough to give it a chance.

I'll give you an example - a low grade UK tabloid newspaper gave the movie a genre heading of horror/monster film, and then gave it 1 out of 5 stars because obviously within the genre they had assigned it, it failed.

And I don't have any scientific method of choosing movies to watch - yes I avoid hype where possible (you cannot always avoid it, but it does not sway or influence me), but I use various sources such as internet and maybe certain magazines.

Other than that, the other main attractions of a movie to me would be the story, the director and maybe a certain actor.

I like movies.

I really really really like movies.

I just like hot k-girls. Not enough of those in The Host.

The UK Special Edition streeting March 5th will have these extras (in English, obviousily)

Interactive menus, Scene access, Enhanced for WideScreen TV, Bonus footage, Trailers, Deleted scenes, Behind the scenes, 'Making of' documentary, Interviews (The Production Team, Bong Joon-Ho, Assistant Director,), Other documentaries ('Audition Tapes', 'Saying Goodbye To The Host', 'Memories of the Sewer', 'Puppet Animatronix', 'Designing The Creature', 'Kevin's Korean Life', 'Sound Effects', 'Taining The Actors in Archery, Gun Training etc',), Image gallery, Character profiles, Storyboard comparisons.

FYI, Darcy Paquet of KoreanFilm.org worked on the English subtitle translation for the commentary (link) and since it seems like the UK DVD is missing a commentary, I will wait to see if it pans out with the US DVD. Hope this does decently in US theaters. It feels like a crucial release in determining how (or even if) similar films are released in the US.

I just got it home and loved it. The CG was a little awkward toward the end, but everything else looked great, Song Kang Ho delivered as usual. Can't wait to show it to friends!