Review of The Host (2006) by Emeka W — 03 Aug 2010

Disregard my previous review of this movie. This movie FUCKING rules and it does reach its full potential. I've been re-watching a lot of movies lately and I find that I, usually, enjoy it more the second time than the first time.

I guess knowing what's going to happen, I look for the little details of the movie and the subtleties and nuances. This movie is no different, I enjoyed it SO much more than I did the first time. I don't think my rating will change, but this movie is really an excellent monster film.

On the DVD cover it says it's on par with Jaws. And as much as I love this movie, I'll have to disagree with that, because is usually more suspenseful because you don't get to see the shark until, near, the end of the movie.

So when you see the shark for the first time, it's much more impressive because they found a way to turn a negative (the shark was originally supposed to be seen from the beginning, but the mechanical shark malfunctioned during the shoot, so the shark was mostly hinted at or you could just see the fin) into a positive.

So in that regards, Jaws is a much better film since in this film you get to see the monster from the very beginning. It's not necessarily a negative at all, but it can't be compared to Jaws at all.

Plus this movie is actually much more than just a monster movie. It's sort of a hybrid of Little Miss Sunshine (which came out that same year), Finding Nemo (at least the part of the father searching far and wide for his daughter, in this movie) and social commentary.

This movie succeeds in taking the monster genre and making it believable. The problem with monster movies is that most of the times they're just corny and campy. Godzilla is just camp entertainment, and for the people that like that sort of thing it's great, but this movie really tries to not take the route of the usual monster movie.

In most monster flicks, you usually don't care for the characters. Take Cloverfield for example, I couldn't get into the characters of that movie because the cast pretty much just got cast because of their looks.

I understand that you wanna make the movie pleasing to the eye, but don't sacrifice the characters for that. The cast of Cloverfield were basically just models and how is the audience (who probably AREN'T models) supposed to relate to these assclowns.

In this movie, you have normal people with normal jobs trying to find the little girl that was taken by the monster. It's a simple story and it pays of tremendously. Also one of the things that Cloverfield failed at was making you feel like the monster was a threat at ALL times.

I can understand that New York is a big place and that the monster won't always, conveniently, be where the main characters are, but the movie loses focus of that and at the end of the movie you're like "oh yea this is a monster film.

..I forgot" In this movie, the presence of the monster is ALWAYS apparent, the monster isn't always attacking the people of South Korea, but you KNOW he (or she for all I know) is there. They do this by cutting back to where the monster keeps the girl (and eventually the little boy).

So the monster's presence is always apparent. Another thing I liked was how at the end, when the monster is finally defeated, you feel that the main characters actually accomplished something by killing it.

It's something that's not been apparent in monster movies in forever. That's what it needs to feel like, like they accomplished something and that they finally eliminated the threat. Which brings me to the sequel (with a different director and different cast, most probably), how in THE HELL are you going to make a sequel and have it not be just about the corniest and most contrived bullshit ever.

You'd think that after the events of this movie, that the government of Korea would be more CAREFUL about how they handle toxic chemicals. I just can't wrap my head around that, this movie doesn't NEED a sequel.

The monster is dead, there's no logical room for a sequel there. What are you going to do??? Drop more chemicals in the river???? Again, won't the Korean government (in the movie...DUH) be more careful of how they handle toxic chemicals after this.

If it was the same director and cast, then I'd give it a chance, but I have absolutely NO hope for the sequel and it'll probably be camp entertainment like Godzilla and that pisses me off. And don't even get me STARTED on the fucking American remake.

Christ almighty get your own ideas for FUCK'S SAKE!!!! GODDAMNIT!!!! FUCKITALL!!! Anyway, the cast of this movie is so great. They all very distinctive personalities and are likeable in their own way.

Song Kang-ho is so awesome, though. I can't stress enough how great Song is. I'll never get old of saying this, but he's one of the best and most diverse actors around. He's just as great at comedy as he is at drama.

He's one of the best at that, because not every great dramatic actor can do comedy (IE: Edward Norton) and not every great comedic actor can do drama (and I mean consistently...Adam Sandler and Eddie Murphy have only done a couple, and not very consistently at that and Jim Carrey doesn't count cause his comedic style is hit and miss for me, same thing with Robin Williams).

So that makes Song's diversity as an actor all the more impressive, because he can really convey a whole set of emotions just by his facial expression. Look at this movie (when he first appears at least) and look at Thirst, two completely different versions of the same actor, but he's still excellent in both roles.

Song is just incredible and he's great here. But in reality, the cast is really great in this movie, especially the girl who gives a really good performance despite it being a very challenging role for someone that age.

With that said, this movie is excellent, probably the best monster movie of the past decade, which isn't saying much. But that says more about the quality of other monster flicks, than it does about The Host.