About John Campea

View all posts by John Campea →

You may like these posts

8 thoughts on “John Reviews The Host”

  1. Wow, John, I can tell that you’re the type of movie geek whom I would probably argue with for hours.

    Hammy acting? Maybe, but it’s Korean. Of course people adjust expectations when viewing foreign films. Why? Cause it’s foreign you DULT!!!! If you’ve seen much of any Korean cinema, you’d realize that they have a different approach to acting. Things tend to be more “over the top and melodramatic.” It’s a cultural characteristic. If you can’t over look that, than you shouldn’t be reviewing Korean films.

    Yes, the effects are inconsistant. So what? I was able to get over that easily. The cinematography, soundscape, and incredible mise en scene certainly made up for that.. Do you even know what that term entails? Cause that’s where a director comes in. The director has nothing to do with the special effects, but how things flow on screen. The attention to small details. That’s where this film shines.

    The script is fantastic. Fun little movie? Shit, It’s a pretty dark and heavy handed film to be so cleanly labeled as silly fun. I won’t post any spoilers, but this certainly is not light hearted, monster camp. This is Korea’s answer to the original Godzilla. People forget the TRUE origins of the King of Monsters. A haunting allegory for the hiroshima bombing. Go back and watch the original Japanese cut of Godzilla, there’s nothing fun, or campy about it. The same goes for The Host.

    And with the fact that this film provides the same polished look and well executed action of a hollywood film for an eigth of the price is commendable in itself. And I disagree, if the film was made exactly the same by an American studio, it’d be just as highly praised. In fact, it’d likely be a Speilburg picture. In all reality, The Host is very much akin to Jurassic Park. A rollercoaster ride with well developed characters. But that film hasn’t become the classic that it is soley because of the special effects and dinosaurs. It’s really celebrated for sense of heart. Underworld has terrific special effects, yet that film sucks.

    As commercial and flat as a film maker Speilburg might be, the reason why few are able to imitate his success, is because he’s a story teller at heart. He tells stories about people we can relate to. It just so happens that they’re fighting off dinosaurs, or aliens, or giant sharks.

  2. youre absolutely right john, people do shift their expectations when watching foreign films. i can’t ever quite decide this if this intentionaly shift is either entirely negative or positive though (it probably varies a lot, depends on how much you watch of any one kind of film, from wherever they come), because sensibilities will differ from country to country, yet it does risk forgiving too much about a films faults.

    i’m also not overly keen on foreign films that take large-scale approach to telling stories but considering what this movie is, it’s understandable and entirely necessary of course – it works far better as a movie with scale that ‘brotherhood’ did, and i see no substantial reason to dislike a film because the industry manages to produce something that appears large simply because it’s no longer intimate, small, artisticly limited to something so obviously different from hollywood…

    the effects, yes they vary dramatically, the fire in particular shows how poor things can get – as do the shadows in the water and a few other things – but in some shots the thing looks superb. yes, it’s not a stunning film, yes its forgiven a lot because of its origins, but it also takes some adjustment and experience of korean films to get the reasons for the limitations, expectations, the kind of storytelling style – the biggest barrier in understanding korean films seems to be (at least it was for me) the inclusion of a rather comical style of delivery which is used to make drama not drift over into pompous territory, can make the acting seem hammy i suppose, also often seem inappropriate… afterall, they like their melodrama in korea.

  3. So glad you finally reviewed this. I totally agree with you. The movie is really over hyped and not as good as many try to make it out to be, but still, it’s quite fun to watch. Who doesn’t like seeing giant monsters eat people? Glad you’re going to be doing more of these John!

  6. Two things which make this film work over is american counterparts.

    1) The willingness of a filmmaker to not ‘cop-out’ at the end of the film and carry the situation fully to a ‘satisfying’ conclusion. I found this movie very similar to Spielberg’s version of War of the Worlds, and I felt that Spielbergs ending was maudlin and awful. The Host’s ending was much, much more satisfying.

    2) Tonal shifts in The Host, from comedy to horror, to political satire (foreign and domestic S. Korea), to family dysfunction drama are handled quite lightly and gracefully. I can imagine how clunky this may be done in its US Blockbuster counterpart (I’m not saying there aren’t American Blockbuster directors out there who could do it, I’m just saying that I haven’t seen it done quite like the Koreans do it).

  7. Hmmmm, Interesting review John.
    I agree with the fact that it is maybe getting too much praise and hype, but i found this to be a great movie and i’ll explain why. Like your self, I had waited a very long time to see this and what i got was certainly not what i was expecting, but it was something else far more satisfying, orginal.

    The one thing that struck me about the film, and story, is that this is a what if movie, but it’s rooted firmly in reality. This is a story of what would happen to a regular family if a monster were to attack and kidnap one of their own. Granted thats kind of an unlikly scenario but non the less, this film shows the real emotional response this type of event would generate. It doesn’t follow any of the usual hollywood machenisms for suspense or horror, it simply says this is what would happen and this is how people would react and feel about it. I loved that about this film. It was a total breath of fresh air to not run the conventional monster movie line, and for that I think high praise should be given to The Host. In other words it takes an orginal approach to a well troden genre. I mean, there is no real brutality for the sake of screen gore and there is no real lurkin in the dark style set ups. Don’t get me wrong, the film does contain those moments but they are out in the open with people what the hell is that thing and what the hell is it doing!!! Lets face it, if this were to happen everyone would try and get a glimpse of it if they could.

    As for the acting, personally I thought it was fine. I’m not sure if hammy really applies though because the situation is an unusual one that whilst you could argue is pretty corny, it’s also played out with a very real sense of urgency and hysteria. Then there’s all the problems with the military and the disinformation that gets circualated about the beast, so really the odds are always against the family and I felt you really got a true feel for what it was they were going through.

    To say that it’s a foreign film with subtitles, so what i might add??, it gets some slack because if a hollywood studio were to have made the same film it would get panned is missing the point in my opinion. This movie can never and will never come out of Hollywood because it doesn’t use any of the conventional shock tactics and thrills and spills a studio would expect and impose on a movie of this type.

    Ok rant over.
    I am really glad to see the 3 minute reviews are back aswell john. I missed em and I think they are a great, fresh way to put across the pros and cons of a movie.

    Thanks for reading.

Leave a Reply