criterionforum.org

Mostly (but not totally) positive -- but does Derek Elley GET more positive than this?

One of if not my most anticipated film of the year, and this review sounds like it's everything I hoped it would be, and might be more with a little tightening!

che-etienne wrote:One of if not my most anticipated film of the year, and this review sounds like it's everything I hoped it would be, and might be more with a little tightening!

I have faith in Bong.

Can't wait!

Michael Kerpan wrote:I have faith in Bong.

Can't wait!

I have faith in bongs, too!

Manohla Dargis is impressed (registration may be required)

So is Grady Hendrix

And even Mike D'Angelo

The consensus is Cannes screwed up bigtime by not selecting this film itself (leaving the Quinzaine to reap the glory)

Magnolia Pictures has bought the distribution rights for all English-speaking territories.

Fantastic news.

A hell of a film. One of the best monster movies I've ever seen. Once again, Bong shows he's one of the most accomplished genre filmmakers working today. This is a film that does everything Hollywood blockbusters are supposed to do but hardly ever do: it's fast, it's (very) funny, it's scary, it's suspenseful, even moving. Bong fulfils all of his genre obligations, but still manages to come up with constant surprises, ranging from classic misdirection to unexpected sight gags to far more audacious undercuttings of expectations. For example, the first ten minutes of the film are impeccable set-ups for the slow reveal of the beast, but then the template is gleefully, spectacularly abandoned. Do yourself a favour and see this on the big screen. More fun than a barrel of squid.

Where did you see it Zedz!?

fyi this will be playing at TIFF as part of the midnight series.

franco wrote:Where did you see it Zedz!?

Film festival screening. So good I saw it twice so I could initiate others.

I surely hope Tony Rayns gets it to VIFF.

This is hands-down one of the best films of the year. I'm a huge fan of Bong Joon-Ho after seeing his Memories Of Murder a few years back (which alongside Kiyoshi Kurosawa's Cure I consider one of the best serial killer / detective films ever made). I think for me he now surpasses Park Chan-Wook as my favourite South Korean director. He has perfect control of both narrative and visual form and perhaps like no other director I've seen, moves masterfully from political satire to black humour to intense drama to thrills to chills to social commentary and abstract poeticism without flinching.

After seeing The Host at a sold out session at the Melbourne International Film Festival in July (I saw 47 feature length films and this was easily the most fun I had all festival) I'm amazed at how he can so effortlessly turn a genre and all its rules on its head and make it work (and work well, perhaps even surpassing the greats that set the rules in the first place), let alone turn what is an obvious B-movie into a work of art. The is one of the funniest, chilling and most outright entertaining films I've seen this year and will without doubt make my Top 10 for 2006. The 'Jaws' of the 21st Century, a blockbuster that is far more than the sum of its parts.

Madman has confirmed it for R4 DVD release as part of their Eastern Eye label in early 2007.

Just had a look to see what reviews are floating around, both Filmstalker
and BeyondHollywood give it a perfect 5/5 rating.

Well -- both "Barking Dogs Never Bite" and "Memories of Murder" are essentially perfect -- so "Host" sounds like he is maintaining a perfect record!

I'm yet to see Barking Dogs Never Bite. Hopefully the crossover success of The Host will prompt a decent DVD release.

Going to see The Host this friday at the HIFF (Helsinki International Film Festival), I'm pretty excited about it. Saw Barking Dogs Never Bite there a few years back and I loved it.

Somehow I've ended up missing Memories Of A Murder, I should probably see that asap, as it too looks very interesting.

soma wrote:I'm yet to see Barking Dogs Never Bite. Hopefully the crossover success of The Host will prompt a decent DVD release.

The Korean DVD was quite good -- it even had an isolated sound track (not to mention subtitles).

Dave Kehr likes it.

So, from the reviews I've been reading and the trailers I've been watching, could one say that this is a sort of Gojira for the 21st century or am I way off the mark?

Just saw this today at a media screening. Frankly, few other films have depressed me as much as this one. I would hesitate to call this entertainment; it's clearly an indictment of US policies and of some striking indifference in the Korean society. With The Host I can further my appreciation of

Spoiler

Howard Hawks' reaction to High Noon.

Perhaps I took the movie too seriously, but I was so upset after about 2/3 that I couldn't laugh any more, although I was only laughing in the first place because others were. I agree with Zedz that there are some really moving scenes - especially ones with the beer can. I will never look at one with the same attitude anymore.

I saw this today (right after Inland Empire!) and absolutely loved it! I can only add to the chorus of praise here. The beast looked great. A mix between CGI and a puppet, no? Looked very real.

zedz wrote:For example, the first ten minutes of the film are impeccable set-ups for the slow reveal of the beast, but then the template is gleefully, spectacularly abandoned.

What did you mean by this zedz?

denti alligator wrote:

zedz wrote:For example, the first ten minutes of the film are impeccable set-ups for the slow reveal of the beast, but then the template is gleefully, spectacularly abandoned.

What did you mean by this zedz?

Well, the standard set-up for the reveal of the monster in a monster movie is like the old "Mister Wu" story, with extended build-up for a delayed revelation. You get hints and speculations, a gory off-screen killing or two, eerie noises, some physical gauge of its size / strength / awfulness (a footprint, clawmarks in steel) and a couple of tantalising glimpses (a silhouette, an extreme close-up, a shape moving in the trees). The full reveal of the monster is traditionally delayed until after the halfway point (or, depending on the budget, the climax), and the graphic, cast-of-thousands rampage is almost always at the tail-end of the film.

Spoiler

In The Host, in the first few minutes you get set up for the same template (an eye-witness account of unseen creature, a not-quite-distinct figure under the bridge, a shadow in the water), but this is immediately followed by the 'climactic' rampage, with the monster goofily running towards the camera in all its glory. After this sequence, the film still has plenty of suspense up its sleeve, but none of it has to do with the nature / appearance of the monster!

denti alligator wrote:I saw this today (right after Inland Empire!) and absolutely loved it! I can only add to the chorus of praise here.

I loved at too -- same screening. A wonderful allegory on the US abroad -- Iraq for instance.

Wow, this film has really struck me, never before have I been so 'off' on any film. I know Asian cinema is currently in vogue but it seems that the majority of people genuinely do think this is a very good film.

I thought that it was just another Hollywood remake of an Asian film with the original director helming it again, so when subtitles appeared during the opening titles I almost jizzed myself in anticipation. Then the fact that it's received a fairly 'wide' limited release (playing at Odeon, Vue and Cineworld multiplexes across the country afaik) dawned on me and the supported by the UK Film Council logo came up and i thought "now I know this has to be good".

I tend not to think negatively of films, in fact I can count the films i've seen (and remember) that I really didn't like on one hand, but I thought The Host was terrible, one of the worst I've seen this year (although not as bad as The Grudge 2 and Posiedon). In contrast to zedz' thoughts: it's slow, it's occassionally funny, it's not scary in the slightest, it's not suspenseful at all, it's moving once

Spoiler

when the protagonist miscounts the shells.

I know my experience probably would have been better in a packed theatre rather than the 6 or 7 people in there when I saw it (and had I attended with mates who would appreciate a similar kind of absurd/twisted humour as I do, rather than my girlfriend), but it tried so hard to be funny that it was just a total farce (and not in a good way). I mean there were a few funny moments which elicited a 'ha' from me but overall the film wasn't funny. In fact overall the film wasn't anything, I can't remember the last time i was so utterly indifferent to a film while I was watching (I even abandoned my popcorn fairly rapidly in order to free myself of any distraction that might be a contributing factor). Even your average shitty Hollywood movie at least can draw you into the narrative.

I respect what the film was trying to do and it managed to do it at times but mostly without success. In my opinion the film was seriously flawed, I thought the narrative structure was great but ultimately wasted, there wasn't enough conflict throughout the majority of the film, the pacing was poor and many scenes were completely uninteresting, many elements felt cut and pasted, dialogue and staging was often poor, and conflicts in tone (e.g. melodrama, humour, suspense, horror, farce) blended together and cancelled each other out, like when you hear too many sounds of the same frequency range and can't make out any one of them.

More specifically, there was farcical action happening when the filmic techniques are emotionally cueing you to feel that it's not funny (as opposed to striving for an ironic humour), action scenes being poorly staged/shot that you don't feel any kind of excitement/thrill,

Spoiler

like for instance, when the creature is first revealed and runs past the protagonist, instead of running away he runs alongside it!

and characters having melodramatic scenes when you don't give a shit about them, in fact it's forced expository dialogue in these melodramatic scenes thats supposed to provide much of the character development.

The best example of my thoughts on this film (great concept, poor execution) can be summed up in the sequence

Spoiler

in the sewer where the sister (who is there alone) goes to fire an arrow at the creature and gets swatted onto the wall and down into a hole: it should be funny, it's already established that she takes too long to fire when shooting, but there's no buildup (even just a 2 second shot could provide it) - there's a payoff without a setup. When she does get swatted you don't even see what happens it just cuts (to another scene if I remember correctly?) so you don't even get time to comprehend it and then laugh. Also, it's too indifferent, the action just happens and that's it. Some kind of sound of pain (not a horrific one as if her arms were broken, but one consistent with the action in that she's merely bruised) from her would have been perfect, or a yelp at the moment of being hit. A successful example of something like this is the scene in Mulholland Dr. when the thugs go to the director's house and the woman there (I can't remember if it's his girlfriend or wife or whatever) jumps on one of the thugs back and he punches her in the head.

Execution is everything and this film lacked it throughout.

Aside from the narrative structure the only other thing I liked about this film was the political commentary, although it felt a little clumsy at times. I suppose I'll give some reviews a read and try and work out why people like this so much.