(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aintitcool.com%2Fimages2006%2Fthehost.jpg&hash=3be44434bd5e3b6321c823aced5680ff579e485c)
SYNOPSIS: In this creature-feature from South Korean director Bong Joon-ho, a young girl is snatched from her father by a giant monster that has emerged from the River Han to wreak havoc on Seoul. As the rest of the city runs in fear, the girl's family sets out to find her.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fentimg.msn.com%2Fi%2F150%2Fmo%2FOneSheets%2Fnew3%2Fhost_2.jpg&hash=8b12c2c2ffcc956da2e1bb870a05c7df6c741079)
TRAILER HERE: http://movies.msn.com/movies/movie.aspx?m=2076001
this has had some pretty great reviews on geek sites and i'm really kicking myself now for not seeing it at the NYFF like i had thought about.
I saw it, and I seem to be the only person who really didn't like it at all. I was so excited about it, but when I was watching it I couldn't believe I was watching the same movie that everyone else had been raving about. I thought it was stupid, and mildly annoying.
looks pretty awesome. can't wait to be disappointed.
gb, what's not to like about the film? it's funny, the characters are likeable, and there's decent action. not the best movie ever, you shouldn't rush to the theater to see it, but if it's a rainy day and you're looking for something cool to see, this is your best bet. i liked it a lot. saw it at the nyff and enjoyed it more than inland empire, but y'all might know how i feel about that one.
The only thing I liked about it was that it was funny. The gratuitously slapstick scenes (which, for the most part, are all in the trailer) are great, and if the whole movie had continued that way, it would have been fun. But I didn't like the action, or the monster, and since that's what most of the film consists of, I got pretty bored. But what I really hated was the political subtext, which was so painfully overt that I almost blushed in embarassment. And it had no bearing on the plot whatsoever! The whole virus subplot, which started out promisingly enough, went downhill with alarming speed, before slamming headlong into a brick wall of bad screenwriting.
I'm convinced that the only way to enjoy this movie is at midnight in a packed house full of people unwilling to be let down. I watched it at home on DVD. Go figure.
I will say, though, that for a nine million dollar budget, this looks pretty spectacular.
i'm also dissapointed with it, i thought it was going to be an ecological metaphor or a more serious, political affair, but nah-ah. social commentary is very mild and, like gb pointed out, embarassing. you gotta trust the uk blurb, though, it's hugely entertaining. i liked the mythic aspect of it, the quasi-estranged family set to rescue the girl and kill the monster. it also has very beautiful sequences, and i'm so glad they didn't went for the 'toxic monster with the heart of gold' route.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsuicidegirls.com%2Fmedia%2Fauthors%2F2229%2Farticle.jpg&hash=3f9fda8cabf92384fc3500741e0c87885ca29e44)
Many critics and fans are calling the Korean horror movie, The Host, the greatest monster movie ever made. That's not just hyperbole, The Host is fast, fun but still manages to sneak in some very astute social commentary on the side of both the Korean and US governments. The plot is simple, a creature was created due to a US military pathologist [played by Scott Wilson] pouring dozens of bottles of chemicals into a Korea based US military base sink, where they are then washed into the Han River. The creature smashes and attacks people in the small city until it captures a young girl and boy. The father of the young girl believes her to be dead and a memorial service is held. But the girl has managed to take a cellphone with her and places a call which ignites her family to her aid. I got a chance to talk with burgeoning Korean horror director Joon-ho Bong.
Daniel Robert Epstein: What made you want to show the monster within the first five minutes of the movie?
Joon-ho Bong: Three reasons. First is that I really hate when we see a typical monster movie and we have to wait almost one hour to see just the tail of the creature. So I really hoped to show my creature really early. The second is the feeling of a real disaster. For example, in a car accident people can never prepare. It's so sudden and so quick because people cannot prepare for that sudden accident or happening. So in this first attack sequence, I wanted to recreate as close as possible the actual feeling when people are hit with a sudden disaster or accident. The third reason is that the narrative dictated it. There are so many things that happen after the creature appears that I needed it to appear early, so then I could have the story of the virus, the story about the family, the kidnapping and things like that.
DRE:Of course there are thousands of horrible instances where people are killed and then there's a memorial where people go to pay their respects. But in America it is hard to ignore the parallels that that memorial scene has with the memorials after 9/11. Were you thinking of something specific when it came to that scene?
Bong:Yes. During the 90's and 2000 in Korea there were a couple of really large scale disasters. Almost unbelievable like a department store suddenly collapsing, crumbling and killing 500 people and in the city of Taegu there was a subway fire which killed 300 people. Whenever things like that happened there was this huge big funeral memorial like in the film. It's a Korean reality. I portrayed it very real, as it would be at these places. There's another part because even though it is sad, there are elements of humor in there which I think are true. You're trying to really focus on being sad, but then you hear someone say, "Ok. Can you please pull out your car, please?" Those things do actually happen.
DRE:I love that Scott Wilson has a great role in this film, what made you think of him?
Bong:I saw his supporting role in Monster [directed by Patty Jenkins]. He was a very good victim in the movie. Also in the 1960's and 70's he did many wonderful main roles, In Cold Blood. I also have the DVDs of his movies, The Grissom Gang and The Year of the Quiet Sun. It was my honor to work with him. I sent him just the script and my previous movie, Memories of Murder and he just accepted the role. It was quite an easy choice.
DRE:Was there any communication barrier with dealing with people like Scott or Paul Lazar?
Bong:Those two actors and also a lot of the computer effects artists, are from Australia, New Zealand and [the FX company] The Orphanage in San Francisco. There was no problem because I always had a translator. But I think it's easier to speak within a work environment or a work context. You have the work so it's easier to communicate. When I was working with the artists at The Orphanage we used the internet a lot and satellite phones. The only difficulty problem was the difference in time.
DRE:There are hundreds of movies where the American government does something wrong and there's a monster unleashed on the American people. Even though what creates the monster is based on a real incident, what made you want to make the Americans the ones to put the blame on?
Bong:The actual case is where I got the inspiration. Since I used that case literally, it just ran onto a line of American satire. If you look closely, there's social commentary, political commentary, regarding the Korean government. On the other hand, it is a tradition of the monster genre to have such commentary. If you look at the sci-fi films of the 40's and 50's, you might be like, "Okay. The alien here is representing or symbolizing the Soviet Union." Maybe years from now, somebody might look back at The Host and be like, "Ok. The monster of the time is America." But it's just too simple of an explanation to go with now.
DRE:If The Host was made in America the ending of the film would be very different. But I know that in Korea the idea of sacrifice is very important. Was that what played into your mind in terms of the ending for this film?
Bong:Usually when I'm asked that question I say that the death is not just a simple death. It's a sacrifice. Since you've already asked, I'm very grateful that you've already hit it on the nose. The structure of the storyline is very simple. The whole family is out there trying to save Hyun-seo. But simultaneously, back in the dark sewer, she's actually trying to save someone even weaker than herself, the little boy. So even though the country and the state and society have turned their backs on them, the weak are striving to go ahead and to save someone weaker than themselves. That ties directly with the central theme of the story of the film.
DRE:What made you decide on a smaller creature, rather than something massive?
Bong:I think that the bigger the creature, the less reality it had. Also, if it got big, it would be destroying more things, like buildings and stomping on cars. At the size that it is it can hide behind cars and other things. To have the creature be seen and then unseen does increase the suspense.
DRE:I read that the scene where Nam-il kicks Gang-Du at the funeral was improvised. Is that true?
Bong:No, it was all scripted ahead of time.
DRE:Do you like the actors to try improvisation in your films?
Bong:It depends on the actor and as long as it doesn't destroy the performance or the moment. There are those actors, who through improv, give more of a realistic performance. For instance, Kang-ho Song is a great example. I urge him on like, "I'm going to give you the main point of this scene or this part" and then I try to get him to run with it to give it a different feel or whatever. But if the actors are younger, or there's some actors who want to be told every little thing, than I am quite manipulative in every aspect of their acting.
DRE:Sometimes when people make a horror film, they do have ideas that it will go beyond the horror audience. The Host is a film which has already done so well. Did you or your producers ever think that this is a film which could appeal to a broader audience than most Korean films?
Bong:When people hear about this film, they're going to be curious about the creature. It's just very simple and it might be juvenile, but people are going to wonder, "What's the creature going to look like? What's it going to do?" It's just an innate curiosity. Now this film also has details and particulars of Korean society. But despite that, I think if you look at the characters of the family, they are people you can find everywhere. I think you could find some universal sympathy from people all over the world.
DRE:Did you have to get everything approved by the Korean government?
Bong:In the mid-90s, with the fall of the military dictatorship, all of censorship was abolished. The government doesn't get involved or control or censor anything, with this film or with any other film in Korea. There's something called Korean Film Council which is a government run institution that helps out independent film and low-budget arthouse films. It's more of a support organization.
DRE:Have you been asked to direct an episode of Masters of Horror?
Bong:I haven't been asked, but if I were, it would be a great honor. I know a lot of great directors have been asked and have done episodes for that series, like Joe Dante.
saw this tonite and i really liked it. ghostboy i'm shocked you disliked it that much! i'm not crazy in love with it but i thought it was a good fun time. the political commentary could've been a little more subtle but in a movie about a rampaging monster i guess they just wanted to make sure it would still be heard. it did look pretty damn good though.
I expected it to be as bad as cronopio and ghostboy, but instead, it was really good. the story is a bit standard with the arcs and the acts, but a few twists coupled with great performances made it a really good movie. the movie had a heart, had a little fun with the slapstick stuff, and got everyone cheering for the family at the end. for me that meant it delivered. it made the right choice in pursuing the family story, switching it up halfway through to take it more seriously, and I thought it really paid off in the end. little miss sunshine met 28 days later here.
also, the political stuff--did I miss something? what was this over-reaching political message in there? I just thought they broadly made the g-men to be as incompetent and as paranoid as any other sci-fi movie ever made.
Quote from: pete on March 10, 2007, 02:41:52 AM
little miss sunshine met 28 days later here.
awesome. so overrated met underrated, meaning this is just.. rated. with two mediocre reviews and two good ones. that's what i'm expecting.
Quote from: Julius Orange on March 09, 2007, 05:26:00 PM
Thanks
I loved the humor in this. It's the movie's saving grace, no doubt. The story is really convoluted but it still managed to be entertaining. There is a weird pacing problem with the movie, too. It's hard to tell how much time passes by between scenes. Did anyone else notice this particular problem?
Quote from: pete on March 10, 2007, 02:41:52 AM
also, the political stuff--did I miss something? what was this over-reaching political message in there?
There were some really bad allusions to the WMD in the whole American subplot (which really felt tacked on to me overall for the sole purpose of providing political subtext).
I still feel like I watched the wrong movie, beause everyone loves it so much. I've come to the conclusion that a.) I should have watched in a crowded theater instead of on DVD, b.) that maybe I just don't like South Korean films unless they're really depressing and slow, and c.) that I'm an asshole. The family in the movie (with the exception of the little girl) annoyed the hell out of me, in exactly the same way that Pubrick was annoyed by that woman in
Children Of Men.
I won't say that it's just not my cup of tea, because I love monster movies. I love freakin'
Deep Rising, for Christ's sake!
SPOILERS
I did not get any allusions of the WMD, not even a little bit. what was the parallel? the monster was real and the yellow agent was real. I didn't understand why the virus was fake and didn't get the point of that, but I dunno, it seemed like a Korean thing to have them protest violently in the streets and to react to their government's cooperation with the US with distrust--I mean, that's how they are in real life (remember the WTO?) and things. I thought they had probably the same amount of political stuff as 28 days later, that is, nothing profound, just enough to keep the bad humans bad and to give it some kinda sundance chic. I never thought it went beyond simple plot exposition, and was real real baffled by the numerous claims on this here board, which is especially surprising when FUCKING CRONOPIO said it. answer me! unpuzzle me! please.
I mean, while I don't love the movie undyingly, but I am real realy baffled by these criticisms that just seemed wholly unfounded--I could understand the family being annoying, or the s f/x looking fake, or the contrived arcs and acts wrapped in the aforementioned sundance chic (which has been the direction of recent Korean movies--big commercial blockbusters that play well with the foreign crowd).
Universal To Remake The Host
Source: SciFi Wire
Bong Joon-ho, director of the Korean-language monster movie The Host, told SCI FI Wire that Universal Studios will remake the film for American audiences and that he hopes they do the original film justice. The studio has purchased the rights to The Host, which centers on a dysfunctional family that must overcome its differences to save its daughter, who's been grabbed by a creature that an unresponsive government declares is the host of an unidentified virus. The film, which was a huge hit in Korea and Asia, opened March 9 in limited release in North America and made $314,488 on 71 screens, a healthy per-screen average of $4,429, the BoxOfficeMojo.com Web site reported.
"Maybe three or four years down the line, if The Host [remake] comes out, and there's a cool director who takes it on and makes it a real great film, then I'd be very happy," Bong said in an interview, through a translator. "On the other hand, if it's just crap, I think I'd be happy, too, because then people would be like, 'Oh, yeah, Bong's original was really good.' So, for me, it's a win-win situation. But Universal has a tradition of doing horror and creature films, so I anticipate that they will do a great film."
Bong has said that his next film will be a Korean production of a more intimate, non-genre nature, but the film after that likely will be a big-screen adaptation of the French SF comic book La Transperceneige by Jacques Lob and Jean-Marc Rochette. The story follows the last remnants of mankind, who, following a second ice age, live aboard a train.
"It's about the struggles and fights that go on even in such a critical state," Bong said. "There's the tension. There's the fighting, and that appeals to me also. Outside, it's like ice, but inside it's bubbling over, all these human emotions and whatnot. The contrast there is interesting. I want to keep the tension going. And I think everyone feels the charm of a train."
Why did dubbing go out of style?
Quote from: MacGuffin on March 13, 2007, 11:20:44 PM
Universal To Remake The Host
Source: SciFi Wire
Bong Joon-ho, director of the Korean-language monster movie The Host, told SCI FI Wire that Universal Studios will remake the film for American audiences and that he hopes they do the original film justice. The studio has purchased the rights to The Host, which centers on a dysfunctional family that must overcome its differences to save its daughter, who's been grabbed by a creature that an unresponsive government declares is the host of an unidentified virus. The film, which was a huge hit in Korea and Asia, opened March 9 in limited release in North America and made $314,488 on 71 screens, a healthy per-screen average of $4,429, the BoxOfficeMojo.com Web site reported.
"Maybe three or four years down the line, if The Host [remake] comes out, and there's a cool director who takes it on and makes it a real great film, then I'd be very happy," Bong said in an interview, through a translator. "On the other hand, if it's just crap, I think I'd be happy, too, because then people would be like, 'Oh, yeah, Bong's original was really good.' So, for me, it's a win-win situation. But Universal has a tradition of doing horror and creature films, so I anticipate that they will do a great film."
Bong has said that his next film will be a Korean production of a more intimate, non-genre nature, but the film after that likely will be a big-screen adaptation of the French SF comic book La Transperceneige by Jacques Lob and Jean-Marc Rochette. The story follows the last remnants of mankind, who, following a second ice age, live aboard a train.
"It's about the struggles and fights that go on even in such a critical state," Bong said. "There's the tension. There's the fighting, and that appeals to me also. Outside, it's like ice, but inside it's bubbling over, all these human emotions and whatnot. The contrast there is interesting. I want to keep the tension going. And I think everyone feels the charm of a train."
FINALLY! I can't believe it took them this long to start remaking it.
Quote from: jacksparrow on March 14, 2007, 12:20:52 PM
Why did dubbing go out of style?
I think it has more to do with studios thinking that the majority of Americans don't want to see non-Americans onscreen. I really do. And... the studios might not be wrong about that.
After all, dubbing is much more prevalent in other countries. I can see Zoolander in Spanish on Telemundo but I'll never see Infernal Affairs (or any popular foreign film) in English playing on ABC, or USA or TBS or TNT. And stuff like Anime is dubbed over here because, one, cartoons (especially fantasy-based stuff) don't appear to be as country specific in general, and two, anime characters are often white anyway.
Sure, dubbing also usually turns out badly and makes the whole movie ridiculous. Oh wait, now I remember that the US did have dubbed versions of some of Jackie Chan's movies like Drunken Master and Police Story. Still, we prefer him in American movies.
Kinda funny though. Most people would deny being racist but at the same time wouldn't care as much if they saw some Asian person get their heart broken in a movie, then go walking in the rain while some acoustic pop song (let's say Snow Patrol) plays and they reflect on what's happened in the movie so far and then dissolve to the other non American characters also reflecting on what's happened in the movie so far and so on.
Ahem, anyway... so, The Host. Is this movie any different than previous monster movies or did a studio just pay millions to rip off a guy who ripped off something else?
what the hell are you talking about, matt? your thoughts are really weird and wrong.
No, it's true. We really do hate foreigners.
dubbed foreign movies do get played on American TV. jackie chan movies, crouching tiger and life is beautiful and such do get undubbed. in foreign countries, most of the foreign language-shows come in dual tracks (and most TVs are capable of playing such) and they do take adventage of the dual tracks, broadcasting shows in both the original and the dubbed soundtracks. I think animes get dubbed more frequently because it's much easier to match animated lips, plus it's assumed that their target demographic is children, and it's further assumed that tv watching children probably don't wanna read.
however, I don't think matt is completely crazy or wrong. it's no secret that foreign films, even foreign blockbusters, don't get no love in America (as opposed to foreign films getting love in other countries). and it's no secret that recent foreign blockbusters keep on getting re-made. something's going on, and maybe Pubrick and Polkablues, with their brilliantly overreactionary one-liners, can care to explain.
I agree with Pete that I'm not completely crazy or wrong, but I also agree that my thoughts were poorly put forth, as, when I wrote that post, I was nervous about being late for work but also delaying leaving the house (silly, I know). A thoughtful post it was not.
I had originally meant only to write that studios assumed that the majority of Americans didn't want to see a movie that had South Koreans dealing with destruction in a South Korean city. I kind of meant it in a jokey way, but then I realized that that may very well be true, so then I attempted to expound on that idea in a very rushed manner.
I brought up anime because I figured that seemed like an obvious rebuttal against the idea that Americans don't like to watch foreign things, dubbed or not. But I don't really know that much about anime or why it's accepted in dubbed form more than The Host would be. Pete made better points about this.
I'm thinking more of the whole middle part of America, without which you cannot have a full-on blockbuster (this is a general statement; of course there are people in all parts of the country that like foreign films). I was also going to bring up Crouching Tiger and go further into Jackie Chan stuff, but those are anomalies, and I truthfully can't explain why. Actually, there is the thing about name value--Jackie Chan, Chow Yun Fat are known names. The Host doesn't have that going for it. Nor does The Lives of Others (which I bring up because it's also being remade, probably with... Jude Law, Stanley Tucci, and Vera Farmiga).
So, though a few foreign films have been popular, foreign films certainly are not bankable. Even though most Americans would probably like The Host, it's just not gonna penetrate the bubble as it is, even if it was released on 2,000 screens. It just makes more sense now that I think it through for the studio to take a formula that seems to work (in the sense that it's popular, people seem to like it and so on) and then be able to put a Made in USA stamp on it. It may not be a good way to make movies, but, as far as I know, it's been a good way to make money, which I want the studios to be able to do.
If this post makes no more sense than my previous post, then I'll concede in advance that I really don't know what the fuck I'm talking about.
Quote from: matt35mm on March 14, 2007, 11:47:03 PM
I had originally meant only to write that studios assumed that the majority of Americans didn't want to see a movie that had South Koreans dealing with destruction in a South Korean city. I kind of meant it in a jokey way, but then I realized that that may very well be true, so then I attempted to expound on that idea in a very rushed manner.
I think that's entirely true. The sad fact is, Americans who would have no reservations about seeing a non-English film made with non-American-or-European actors and characters are very much a niche audience. No matter how bad the remake may end up being, it will ultimately be a better return on the company's investment than if they were to simply release the original (foreign) version and market it as they would market any other major-release film, which would probably only work for one weekend.
all they really needed to do if they wanted this movie to do well was find some interview where quentin tarantino said he liked it. that'd get them, like, at least $100,000 more. i guess. what?
So I saw it and it was ok. Kinda like any other monster movie, but with some developed characters. Not unlike Lake Placid.
I really enjoyed this. I thought it made the right choice to focus on the family, the characters, and not about the creature and fighting it (which I'm sure the remake will do). I guess that's where the comparisons to Jaws comes from, because, although it is no where near as scary or great as that film, it does have some great sequences, done with great compositions, editing and use of slow motion. The effects were perfect in that they didn't stand out as effects.
a lot of dark humor in this movie works under that korean political context or whatever it is, otherwise it would be soooo cheesy
I nearly hate this movie when the family was lamenting at the girl like a bucn of morons , and I love this movie until the monster was set on a CGI fire that looked so fake like shit.
overall I enjoyed it pretty much!
I liked the setting and the situation. I found it appealing to watch the movie in another culture's context and see another booming metropolis other than New York or Chicago on film. I really don't think this film would work at all in the American setting. It truly would just be another monster movie - void of any feeling or heart.
SPOILERS HENCEFORTH:
What was confusing is the mix of Americans in the film. I get the origins prologue, but the crazy eyed doctor that wanted to find the virus in his head just seemed out of place. Especially when he later admitted to the virus being hoax. Why did he do a lobotomy? Shits and giggles? That really made no sense other than anti-Western sentiments. Also, contact with the monster seemed to give the guy immunities that later helped him survive the Agent Yellow. I thought they'd set up the ending to be where the father would morph into the next Host for sequel.
I guess the tragic element is just part of the Asian influence to film. Because really, everyone dies for the sake of the goof-off father being able to redeem himself. I don't know if it's a cultural gap that makes it hard for me to fathom that or not.
that's really cute that any part of the film you don't get must be cultural gap.
That's really adorable that you're trying to make this about ignorance.
If this movie was pitched to a Western studio it would have been rejected. They aren't that big on loss of life in exchange for honor. However Asian cinema makes that theme it's bread and butter. Is that a cute cultural gap? I got the meaning, it just wasn't appealing to me as it would be (obviously as the South Korean audience shows) to Asian audiences.
to me on of the greatiest impacts was how director portrayed the korean goverment: by showing nothing of them at all. Americans were the ones on the TV news through out the movie while the society was a huge mess. you can't help thinking how incompetent the goverment is. the director was pretty clever i think.
SPOILER
again, this reminds me of what herzog said once about foreigners like the French or American critics watching his films. All the French critics knew about Germany was expressionism, so everything Herzog did was expressionist, and later neo-romanticism. The Americans didn't know that, so they looked for nazi parallels in everything he did. It's the same thing with this film. It's about as political as 28 days later, meaning it exhibits the general paranoia that any healthy filmmaker has against authority in the world. The Americans were actually there to make the film more marketable and savvy in our post-Iraq War market, but the people on this board who were confused by the film started claiming that 'twas because it was "too Korean." I might be able to buy that too, but Raiku's logic went something like -- "the girl died in the end, which meant the film was about honor, which was an Asian theme (Americans studios won't let little girls die!), which justified my inability to understand the movie because how could I? That's a ginormous cultural gap!"
SPOILERS:
The Grandfather died. The Sister died. The Brother died. The Daughter died. The whole family died except for the slacker, who redeemed himself eventually at the loss of his entire family. For the theme of redemption to work you have to have characters that see the before and after of the journey. Well they're all dead. That's why this didn't work for me. I didn't find it appealing. Therefore, yes, there must be something culturally there that I'm not getting.
Since you, Pete, are the bridge between us ignorant Americans and insightful Asians why don't you please explain it for me. Remember, no big words or metaphors that don't revolve around fast food, otherwise it will be too confusing for me.
wow, there must be something really Asian about Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) then. or maybe T3: rise of the machines.
(oops, SPOILERS!)
Quote from: Raikus on August 31, 2007, 03:22:41 PM
SPOILERS:
For the theme of redemption to work you have to have characters that see the before and after of the journey. Well they're all dead. That's why this didn't work for me.
I really don't think redemption was that much of the THEME of this movie, maybe that's why I enjoyed this movie so much.
again, spoilers.
I just realized that the slacker's brother and sister totally didn't die in the movie. so what the fuck are you talking about, raikus?
How did they not die? They inhale about 10 minutes of Agent Yellow while fighting the monster. It shows them coughing up blood a few times. All the protesters that are in the same vicinity are dead within a minute or so. After the monster dies it shows only the Slacker and Homeless boy starting over a new life. Where in the movie does it say they're alive still?
And if you are seriously comparing T3 and Texas Chainsaw Massacre to The Host as the same theme then you are a moron. The other movies deal with people trying to escape death and being pursued by the antagonist. In the Host they actively seek it out to rescue someone and fail. At the end of TCM the woman is alive. It's not about redemption, it's about survival. They're not even close to being related.
when did they show any of them dying? you totally made that up. maybe the unconscious protestor died, but even that was very ambiguous.
But even if they're all dead, you still have a long way to go to proving that it was all about the father's redemption did they kill every character in the entire movie. you confused yourself with these themes that you made up while watching the movie, and then blame the Asians for your confusion. Since when did your precious "redemption" become exclusively and exotically Asian, I will never know. But again, it was cute that you handed out these themes to each of the movies, and anyone who could compare one apocalypic big budget sci-fi to another one must be a moron. Lemme just question you further since the more I thought about it, the less anythign you'd ever typed as a human being made any sense. How was this redemption on the father's part anyways? Was being a slacker such a sin that he needed to redeem it? What do you have against slackers anyways? The filmmakers and the audience seemed to have loved him. You also gave the film a lot of crap for "failing" to save the little girl, while ignoring the poignancy behind saving her saving the little boy. You also seemed to be judging everything by "success" and "failure", which was totally not what life is about, dude.
how many others on this board thought everyone died at the end?
Quote from: pete on September 02, 2007, 07:43:17 PM
how many others on this board thought everyone died at the end?
I think they MIGHT have died but still I agree with Pete on the rest
Quote from: pete on September 02, 2007, 07:43:17 PM
how many others on this board thought everyone died at the end?
i did. but i haven't seen the movie.