ROTTEN TOMATOES: First Look at The Host 2's "Multiple Monsters" Comments

First Look at The Host 2's "Multiple Monsters"

by Jeff Giles | January 10, 2008

Summary

Work on The Host 2 is moving full steam ahead -- and a just-released concept sketch is giving fans their first idea of what to expect! Back to Article

(1-25 of 25 posts) | Reply

rustdog writes:
on Jan 10 2008 06:41 AM

Is Bong directing this? I know he's working on Tokyo Stories and I had heard rumors of a sci-fi project in the works.

(Reply to this)

dahluzz writes:
on Jan 10 2008 06:53 AM

i want my last name to be bong

(Reply to this)

MiskatonicWest writes:
on Jan 10 2008 07:07 AM

good times

(Reply to this)

Oblivioncry writes:
on Jan 10 2008 08:14 AM

if they are still going to announce the director then its probably not Bong.

(Reply to this)

Pengoo writes:
on Jan 10 2008 08:19 AM

As long as it has more flow than the first one.

After the initial attack (which was absolutely fantastic and incredibly terrifying), the rest of the movie hit sort of this weird level of "it's ok i guess".

(Reply to this)

LordVapor writes:
on Jan 10 2008 09:28 AM

LOL...............Bong....

Sorry, but come on people, that is some funny sh----right there hehehehe.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Bowler writes:
on Jan 10 2008 10:33 AM

Bong should name his daughter Mary Jane :)

(Reply to this)

Now it's dark writes:
on Jan 10 2008 10:40 AM

I'd like another hit from Bong.

(Reply to this)

rsav1976 writes:
on Jan 10 2008 11:26 AM

I have to agree with Pengoo. I enjoyed the film quite a bit, but I wasn't blown away or anything. I probably won't waste my time with the sequel.

(Reply to this)

DON OF THE D.E.D writes:
on Jan 10 2008 12:27 PM

The first movie was ok, nothing great. I thought the cg was'nt very good.

(Reply to this)

vaodsi writes:
on Jan 10 2008 12:46 PM

well.... the cg was done on a shoestring budget. plus, sometimes cheap special fx scare me the most (JAWS, ANdromeda Strian) anyway, Bong (hehehe) is not directing this one (according to worstpreviews.com) a different guy is directing the sequel while bong is hard at work on an AMERICAN VERSION OF THE HOST (blah!)
WHY! WHY! why tamper with the masterpiece. making an american version of the host would be like making a KOREAN version of starwars, or jaws, or the BOURNE films. WOuldn't that be pathetic? (and hilarious!)

(Reply to this)

vaodsi writes:
on Jan 10 2008 12:56 PM

oooops. What i meant was FAKE looking special FX. Cause, yeah, Jaws and andromeda strain were state of the art expencive at the time.

(Reply to this)

DON OF THE D.E.D writes:
on Jan 10 2008 01:12 PM

If the cg was on a tight budget, then why do it if it's going to look fake?
Maybe they should have resurrected Ed Wood to make the film, at least it would have been funny.

(Reply to this)

T45Red writes:
on Jan 10 2008 01:18 PM

In reply to this comment (#1450186)
Yeah, I agree with you Pengoo here. I really enjoyed the initial attack of the monster, thought it was very well done. After that I was kinda disappointed, probably most of it was due to the horrible translation from Korean to English [watched it on DVD with subtitles and most of the dialogue didn't match the subtitles, so I'm thinking that both were wrong anyways]. Plus the characters acted very oddly.

(Reply to this)

dethburger writes:
on Jan 10 2008 02:10 PM

The subtitles are literal translations and english dub isn't. When a movie is dubbed things get change to make the words match the lip movements...often changing the meanig and tone of the phrases.

I want to change my FIRST name to Bong...

,,,and my LAST name to Hitz!

(Reply to this)

vaodsi writes:
on Jan 10 2008 03:10 PM

don of ded, you could ask the same queastion of jaws.... if the fx will look fake and be expensive, why have them? well, it's called story. you kind of need a monster in a movie about a monster. ;)
and a puppet of that size and agility would have been more expensive.

(Reply to this)

A Delicious Pudding writes:
on Jan 10 2008 05:43 PM

to be honest... i HATED the host. i don't get bored easily in movies, but geez... i was fidgeting fifteen minutes into that thing.
maybe i missed something, some political thing or character study or SOMETHING, but i really don't understand what the big deal about that movie was. it really just seemed like a mediocre monster flick to me.

(Reply to this)

FranklinStreet writes:
on Jan 10 2008 06:36 PM

The FX work was by Weta (Peter Jackson's company and one of the best FX companies in the business right now). Not sure how anyone could call it fake-looking FX. I thought that was probably the BEST part of the movie. The script, however, was all over the place, and it seemed like it was never really determined what kind of movie it should be. The opening 30 minutes or so was good stuff, but once the family was taken by the government the film really just lost focus. The ending also felt unearned to me. I think I gave it a 6/10, because it is worth a look, but it has a huge number of problems.

(Reply to this)

VibTDog writes:
on Jan 10 2008 06:58 PM

There really is no need for the Host 2. The first one was nothing special. I fell asleep during it a few times. There could have been about 30 minutes taken out of it.

Plus, how can there be a prequel, when the origin of the original creature was shown in the Host?

And of course, no surprise here, an American version of the Host. oh boy.

I think I would rather skin my knees off with a cheese grater then even hear about another American remake.

(Reply to this)

Duckenheimer writes:
on Jan 10 2008 11:46 PM

Wow, I'm surprised by people's responses. I subscribe to the thought of each one to his own, but I thought the Host was more well loved.

Easily one of my favourite movies.

Not holding breath for a sequel though.

(Reply to this)

vaodsi writes:
on Jan 10 2008 11:48 PM

agreed. (i hate remakes!)

(Reply to this)

J_McClane writes:
on Jan 11 2008 09:21 AM

An American version of the host...hmm...maybe they'll re-name it. I got it!! Let's call it (drumroll)...Cloverfield

(Reply to this)

StuntmanMike writes:
on Jan 11 2008 10:08 AM

Wow. I thought The Host was brilliant. The thing about it was, it wasn't really a monster movie, it was a family drama that happened to have a monster in it. If you look at it that way you'll enjoy it much more. And a company called The Orphanage did the FX, not WETA. And I think they did a damn fine job considering the budget. Except toward the end when the creature is on fire. But CG fire always looks fake in my opinion. I can't believe people think this film is blah, it's beautifully filmed and acted and emotional. If you're a monster movie fan you'll probably love it, it's very Spielbergian with how it deals so heavily on family and telling an epic story through an intimate-type viewpoint.

But I'm not looking forward to a prequel. Leave good films be! One is enough!

(Reply to this)

RolandtheGunslinger writes:
on Jan 11 2008 01:39 PM

In reply to this comment (#1451359)
Correction. It was not weta digital do the cgi work. It was Orphanage studioes. The project first gone to WETA but With LOTR success they have to drop it. Weta became too expensive for them. But Weta give some advice level assist. I have learned it from the DVD extras.

I love Orphanage's works in Jeepers Creepers 2, The Forgotten, Planet Terror and The Host.

(Reply to this)

Ryguy4738 M. writes:
on Jul 16 2009 03:30 PM

When will this finally be coming out

(Reply to this)

Related Links

The Host

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links