These are the sort who rise to high office…as quislings. Nam-ils drunkenness is aa sign hew has not sold out, so ironically not a bad sign.

No, I think Nam-il’s drunkenness is a bad sign. His friend is a traitor and definitely villainous — though note he’s not in high office — but that doesn’t excuse Nam-il’s sorry state.

Nam-il’s drunkenness and his friend’s betrayal both seem to me to emblematize the state of the real “left” in Korea since the days of protest: some have turned their backs by changing sides, and some have turned their backs in despair. Nam-il’s later use of the soju bottle (his despair) as a weapon is an important change. He no longer can stand with his back turned.

‘Almost all American presence in the film is explicitly linked to Korean power — oppressive Korean power’

No, this is back to front: south korea has its present govt because its a US client, which will ally itself with a certain sort of person…just as Afghanistan has Karzai, and iraq had saddam (US clients both)…When the US leaves, the we will see what sort of govt forms.

I hate to say this, but I get the impression you know much less about contemporary South Korea than you need to discuss its politics. I’ll just point out that however valid the analogy with Afghanistan today might be in discussing Korea in 1945, or 1961, or even, long shot, 1980, it’s not a valid analogy today. There is no expectation on any side of a new government superstructure to be formed once the American military leaves. Well, except the rare truly fanatic supporters of North Korea, who imagine an impending reunification no doubt under Northern rule.

The general consensus within the government regarding the presence of American troops is rather like the wider general consensus regarding foreign English teachers in Korea: a necessary evil. (Just like both Democrat and Republican, most South Korean government representatives on left and right can’t really envision sending the American troops home.) Hence the research into robotics, publicly described in places as intended to guard the DMZ and to teach English to children alike.

(I should note, some more moderate Koreans see the growing foreign presence here as just a sign of globalization; but certain elements endemic to Korean education tend to predispose people to see this as a negative effect on Korea.)

‘Bong isn’t praising protestors, he’s mocking them as viciously as he mocks almost everyone else, including Americans’

This may go down well with patriotic americans, but thats not how i read this scene.

Well, but one needs to know more about Korean politics than you apprently to in order for the scene to be intelligible.

By the way, I’m not American.

Why mock koreans demonstrating against a foreign occupation?

They’re not. They’re demonstrating the release of Agent Yellow in Korea.

The reasons to mock protesters are many and varied. One fact is that in South Korea, hundreds of protests occur every year. It is become the response to any perceived injustice, however slight. An example: where I work, students protested the University’s non-disclosure of its finances, and demonstrated about the particulars regarding which departments got moved into the newly constructed building on the front of campus.

To be clear: students were made that some departments were moved to the new building, but not others. They’re mad because they’re not being told how their fees are being spent at a university. They demonstrated.

Demonstrations can break out for just about any reason, and they do. People demonstrate against other governments and even against facts of other languages. Some people here frankly demonstrate at the drop of a hat.

The other thing is, the new generation is pretty much apolitical, with a few extremists (career demonstrators) mixed in. That is to say: younger Koreans, when they get involved in demonstrations, tend to be there because everyone else is. The political apathy gets broken through by moments of emotional outburst, but not by real consciousness, let alone dedication.

What the film suggests is that whatever spirit powered people to face death and massacre in the demonstration and rebellion in Kwangju, is gone, dead, beaten-down like Nam-il, or otherwise fled.

‘ve crowd of protesters suddenly dwindles to a handful of souls just as Agent Yellow is released.’

Not to join in on your gleeful America-bashing, but not many Americans would mount an armed rebellion against a tyrannical dictatorship, either. But it happened in Kwangju. At least, that’s one way of telling the story. So why don’t the protesters here behave that way, given the clear invocation of Kwangju in multiple parts of the film? (Bong even mentions how Nam-il is a symbol of that old demonstrator culture in the English director’s commentary.)

Well, naturally, as its a toxic agent!…how many americans would stand so close to agent orange or yellow if it were to be released in a american city!

But this is a film with fictional characters, not real people. Moreover, the cinematography is heavy-handedly satirical: that’s why we have the flash moment of that small pathetic band of demonstrators who remained behind.

The film is definitely making fun at that point. I think it’s directed at apolitical youth (and that’s most youth today), protest culture, and more.

In fact, your reading seems to ironically mirror GI Korea’s: he glumly sees America-bashing and Korea-boosterism, you gleefully see America-bashing and Korea-boosterism. I think you both miss how what the film most viciously critiques is Korean society.

The issue of the films being ‘anti-american’ is a straw man. If the US were under foreign occupation,would americans make films that ignored the occupiers?

I don’t know where you got the idea that Korea is under foreign occupation. Can I ask: are you dating a North Korean girl, or some leftist expat Korean girl who is filling your head with funny ideas? The oppressive occupiers as far as I can see are huge Korean corporations and a government which seems less interested in serving its citizens than in serving itself. Dysfunctional democracy, sure, but dysfunctional in a particularly Korean way, rather than in a colonial sense.

Perhaps the occupiers would say: why do u hate us, when we are here for your own good…’

Wait, the occupiers that both left and right wing in Korea have voted to keep here? The occupiers who would be happier not to be here? The occupiers who are providing expensive military support to a society that, these days, can afford a proper army, after all?

Yes, there was a time when American power in Korea was extended through the military. Yes, to some degree the US does exert power here even now, through its military presence. But it’s more like, “We’re loaning you forces to hold the North at bay, so side with us on issues, lower your barriers to trade with us, and support us in international conflicts.” The small bevy of Koreans sent to Iraq is a far cry from the number of men sent to Vietnam. It’s a different era, and your picture of the situation here seems stuck in the 70s.

The film IS anti-american occupation… to claim its antiamerican is to say the film makers hate americans…odd when they used the Orphanage for CGI!

Um, I don’t think the choice of special effects companies necessarily has anything to do with the politics of the narrative. Or would the use of an Australian company for designing the monster in robotic form for 3-D shooting somehow introduce a pro-Australian slant into the film, as well?

FX and who gets the job is a function of economics, pure and simple.

Yes Donald lOOKs like a token! But he also says not all americans are the same.

Sure. That’s what I said. It’s nice to see a non-racist portrayal of a Westerner in a Korean film, though we also see “one nice white man” in Welcome to Dongmakgol, a film where the blame for the devastation for the Korean War is laid straight upon the USA. (Not even the USA and the USSR and China, just the USA.) Having a nice white man doesn’t save a film from being a morally idiotic, nationalist/racist diatribe.

What saves The Host from this is not the inclusion of one nice white man, it’s the vicious satire poked at everyone in the film: white, Korean, and nonhuman alike.

As for your sense that Donald is different because he is “young” and “uncorrupted”, perhaps you should visit Korea and talk to some of the old white men you see here. Some of them have been here since their Peace Corps days in the 70s and 80s.

As for Donald not distancing himself from the locals: the vast majority of foreigners living in Korea live among them in the way you suggest Donald does, but they have yet to be depicted in film that way. (Except maybe in a comedic role, in the film Please Teach Me English which has other problems in its handling of race… which one of my students wrote a brilliant paper criticizing, in fact.)

And mauybe I’ve misunderstood the last line of your second comment, but the girlfriend is, implicitly, not supposed to be Korean-American. This is the archetypal, much-maligned “Korean girl/American soldier” couple that is so prevalent in the Korean imagination that even when the white guy is 35 and overweight with the wrong hair for military and a bundle of books under his arm, walking out of a university campus, some people still think “GI”… and assume the Korean-looking woman with him is desperate and also, for lack of a better word, a “slut.”

Yes, really.

AS for the sequel, im less enthusiastic, esp as its to be american (who will be the villain here?), and unless they get Verbinski to direct, i dont expect much in the way of originality.

American? Huh? Link?

I missed Mother in cinemas and will have to see it on DVD. ]]> http://www.gordsellar.com/2008/08/18/reading-the-host-in-context-part-2-how-i-read-the-host/comment-page-1/#comment-34670 brian Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:38:59 +0000 http://www.gordsellar.com/2008/08/18/reading-the-host-in-context-part-2-how-i-read-the-host/#comment-34670 Have to add: 'Then again, Private Donald is dressed pretty much like any other [Korean] Yeouido visitor, and his relationship with his girlfriend seems, from the few moments we see of it, heartfelt. She pleads for him to not run into the monster’s vicinity, which is a hell of a step up from every [romantic] foreigner-Korean relationship I’ve ever seen in a Korean movie. (Usually, the girl is either a prostitute or a so-called “slut,” and seems sad or mentally mixed-up. Donald’s girlfriend seems pretty much like any average Korean girl of the same age, except that she seemingly (from her accent) speaks English fluently. Kudos to Director Bong for giving us what may be the first non-psycho Western/Korean couple in Korean film. May be, note. There might be an earlier case I’ve missed!)' this is well observed....Donald has not distanced himself from the locals...as he is young, hes not yet been indoctrinated to any role he must perform.... Her english is fairly fluent,but not as much as Lazars coworker! A korean american... Have to add:

‘Then again, Private Donald is dressed pretty much like any other [Korean] Yeouido visitor, and his relationship with his girlfriend seems, from the few moments we see of it, heartfelt. She pleads for him to not run into the monster’s vicinity, which is a hell of a step up from every [romantic] foreigner-Korean relationship I’ve ever seen in a Korean movie. (Usually, the girl is either a prostitute or a so-called “slut,” and seems sad or mentally mixed-up. Donald’s girlfriend seems pretty much like any average Korean girl of the same age, except that she seemingly (from her accent) speaks English fluently. Kudos to Director Bong for giving us what may be the first non-psycho Western/Korean couple in Korean film. May be, note. There might be an earlier case I’ve missed!)’

this is well observed….Donald has not distanced himself from the locals…as he is young, hes not yet been indoctrinated to any role he must perform….
Her english is fairly fluent,but not as much as Lazars coworker! A korean american…

again, very good review with nice points raised: such as Nam-il and his fat ‘collegue’. The scene where he was betrayed, as indicative of corruption in former student revolutionaries, alas. These are the sort who rise to high office…as quislings. Nam-ils drunkenness is aa sign hew has not sold out, so ironically not a bad sign.

‘Almost all American presence in the film is explicitly linked to Korean power — oppressive Korean power’

No, this is back to front: south korea has its present govt because its a US client, which will ally itself with a certain sort of person…just as Afghanistan has Karzai, and iraq had saddam (US clients both)…When the US leaves, the we will see what sort of govt forms. Buts it notable that in the US, whether democrat or republican, neither has any intention of removing the various US occupations. Would south korea be any different or would th worst sorts rise to power then as well? Cuba or Venezuela present a very interesting contrasts.

Just watched it again last night.

‘Bong isn’t praising protestors, he’s mocking them as viciously as he mocks almost everyone else, including Americans’

This may go down well with patriotic americans, but thats not how i read this scene.
Why mock koreans demonstrating against a foreign occupation?

‘ve crowd of protesters suddenly dwindles to a handful of souls just as Agent Yellow is released.’

Well, naturally, as its a toxic agent!…how many americans would stand so close to agent orange or yellow if it were to be released in a american city!

The issue of the films being ‘anti-american’ is a straw man. If the US were under foreign occupation,would americans make films that ignored the occupiers? Perhaps the occupiers would say: why do u hate us, when we are here for your own good…’
The film IS anti-american occupation…to claim its antiamerican is to say the film makers hate americans…odd when they used the Orphanage for CGI!

‘And no, the token nice white dude who sacrifices his life to help save the lives of some Koreans doesn’t erase that many Americans look like bad guys in this film. Then again, Private Donald is dressed pretty much like any other [Korean] Yeouido visitor, and his relationship with his girlfriend seems, from the few moments we see of it, heartfelt’

Yes Donald lOOKs like a token! But he also says not all americans are the same. We see 3 americans in the film, barring those on TV: Donald is young, so not as corrupted as the older men, nor is he an official, as his type would be weeded out of any high office. Donald mingles with the locals…the others exist in a hierarchial relation to the koreans….NOTE the korean with Lazar’s character spoke fluent american english…unlike the korean who poured the formaldehyde down the drain….

AS for the sequel, im less enthusiastic, esp as its to be american (who will be the villain here?), and unless they get Verbinski to direct, i dont expect much in the way of originality.

BUT i DO look forward to seeing Bongs new film: Mother, and also his next Ice age film….Bong has such artistry and integrity that it cant be anything but a success.

Thanks for your enthusiastic praise. I loved the movie, and am dying to see the sequel, if it’s ever coming out. Quite little has been said recently but apparently they’re still working on it.

Yeah, I found GI Korea’s reading of the film pretty skewed, though to be fair, I’ve also encountered cabbies here who I have wanted to punch in the teeth. Racist, sexist, and even violent ones. I have several female friends and at least one male friend who have experienced sexual harassment from cab drivers. So cut the guy a little slack.

As for the FTA stuff, it’s a bit more complex than just greedy Americans. There’s a chunk of Korean society for the FTA, a chunk against, and a lot of people for whom it’s difficult to talk about the issue without nationalism, anti-Americanism, and other stuff entering into it.

Which isn’t to say they’re wrong to oppose it… I tend to be leery about FTAs since I don’t perceive NAFTA as having been particularly positive for Canadians. But Korea is eagerly nabbing FTAs with other countries withoutt must public concern. When it comes to America, it’s as much an issue of the politics of a give age group and the way Korean politics have been constructed (right wing kneejerk pro-American/anti-NK, left-wing kneejerk anti-American/pro-NK) that muddles whatever reasoned discussion might otherwise ensue. I *can* say that from what I know, Koreans should be very worried about the IP law that was proposed in the KORUS-FTA, but beyond that I don’t know enough to comment…

… except to say that the screen quota has as much to do with the flagging quality/popularity of Korean cinema, and the desire to keep Korean audiences (and their box office dollars) captive. And according to one filmmaker friend of a friend, the money is all concentrated in a small clique, who are desperate to maintain their control over the entertainment industry here.

Also, that cut mentioned in the article? If it’s remained in effect, it has hardly had any effect as far as I can notice. Cinemas here are still ABLE to show Korean films more and longer, and they generally do. They’re not required to do so, but the degree of nationalism (or patriotism, you decide which) one sees in businesspeople and the general (and after all understandable) interest among Koreans to watch Korean films ensures Korean films are running longer than Western ones, on more screens, and in more venues.

Hes the sort of american about whom ‘anti-american’ movies deserve to be made!

Thanks! And thanks for the link to that story… I suspect there’s a lot of this kind of thing in post-1948 Korean lit. When I first arrived here, older authors were actually up in arms because younger writers weren’t focusing on the Korean war (literally or metaphorically) in their work.

I realized, after posting this, that Hyun-Seo and her father and grandpa probably just lived in the stand. That’s where Gang-du obviously lives at the end, right? But yeah, if they have a place elsewhere, it could well be a fake address that allows Hyun-Seo to attend Dangsan Middle School (a detail I missed, and again, a very politicizing detail). Faking their addresses has been a very popular way of getting around government rules on access to better schools, according to Michael Seth — a shockinglyy common practice throughout the whole Miracle on the Han period. (Shocking because it jolts you into awareness that however authoritarian Park and Chun were, they never seemed to manage to push through the educational reforms they wanted… the masses definitely resisted them on that front.)

Maybe I’ll check out Antarctic Journal sometime, then. But Sorum I will definitely be on the lookout for.

I’ll also be updating if there’s anything interesting among Bong’s English-language commentary on The Host, since I now have access to that, too.

Just thinking of how you said both Gang-du and Hyun-seo were neglected, and that reminds me of a story called “The suffering of two generations,” by Ha Keun-chan, about a man who lost an arm in the pacific war (if I remember, doing manual labor for the Japanese army) who meets his son at the train station, returned from fighting in the Korean war, and has to carry his son home on his back because he’s missing a leg.

Oh, and in the film it says Hyun-seo goes to Dangsan Middle School, which is across the olympic expressway from the national assembly. Not that this necessarily means she and her father live there – they could have used a fake address (in fact one of my grade 6 students told me today she’d changed her address so she could go to a different middle school next year).

As for antarctic journal, I thought the direction was fine; it was the script (or the ending, really) that was terrible). And Sorum’s debut was at Pifan in 2001, oddly enough.

BTW, never even heard of Sorum. It came out only a few months before I arrived, but there wasn’t much of a moviegoing scene where I lived then…

Thanks for the clarifications!

1. Aw, damn. I remember reading that now, and asking myself why the hell they wouldn’t do everything they could to ghet Bong on board. Too bad.

And yeah, I mentioned about Kangfull in the first post of the two, I think, and about it being set near the Cheonggyecheon back in the days of Lee’s restoration project…

2. I didn’t know anything about Yim, but that’s funny. I haven’t seen his earlier films — I never heard about Handel & Gretel, and Lime refused to see Antarctic Journal because everyone said it was just horrible. (Was it not?)

And as a personal note, I must be very cynical, because when I see the words, “respectable family” I almost wanna reach for a molotov cocktail myself. :)

3. Haha. Okay, I never thought about the monster as a giant, scary vagina, but I certainly did think a little awkwardly about the fact that Hyun-Seo is “replaced” by a boy.

I also tried to imagine the story being told with the sexes of the two kids reversed: a teenaged boy saves a little girl, who is then adopted by her surrogate father. OR mother, if we went so far as to reverse the genders on all the characters, and it’s a bunch of misfit ajummas and agashis — the cast of Singles, maybe, or Please Take Care of My Cat — hunting the monster.

Needless to say, the dynamic didn’t seem to work. Nor did the dynamic of Hyun-Seo saving another little girl. A boy and another little boy, maybe, but I think there’s something about a “good girl’s sacrifice” or something going on there. Reminds me of whichever old story it is where the good daughter sacrificed herself for the rice to sacrifice to the temple so her father could see, etc.

I didn’t know quite what to make of it, though, so I left it off.

As for the ultimate misogynistic metaphor, I have to save my vote for the gynephobic form of good old Cthulhu. (It’s a widely commented-upon Freudian reading of the monster, but in some of the fan art, it’s bizarrely obvious.)

1) Chungeorahm, the production company, owns the copyright on this story. They are the ones making the sequel; Bong Joon-ho has nothing to do with it.

The sequel is being scripted by Kang Pull, one of Korea’s most famous manhwa artists and will (allegedly) take place in the Cheongyecheon, during its restoration a few years ago.

2) The school friend of Nam-il who betrays him was played by Yim Phil-sung, the director of “Hansel & Gretel” and “Antarctic Journal” His appearance got one of the biggest laughs at the industry screening, when I first saw “The Host.” Yim is from quite a respectable family, btw, adding perhaps a little unwitting irony to the character.

3) Personally, I think this is the ultimate metaphor for Korean male misogyny. It’s the story of a giant, scary vagina that kills the young girl and replaces her with a nice boy. Happy ending! (Okay, maybe this point was not all that serious).

Also I agree Park was an oppressive ruler but I disagree that South Koreans cannot justify to themselves why he did what he did just as easily as Americans can. Most Koreans I talk to highly respect Park despite his oppressiveness. I just saw an MBC news poll the other day on TV that had 77% of Koreans surveyed saying Park was Korea’s best leader. Interestingly enough Lee Myung-bak polled lower then both Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo which I find incredible.

One thing we can agree on though is that Dragon Wars was a horrific movie.

Also, I’m pleased at the mention of the archery. I had a tickling in the back of my head about women and archery in Asia, but I couldn’t remember if it was a Korean thing.
One thing you could explore more is how her success or lack thereof in killing the monster (oddly enough I remember her injuring it seriously, but then I also seemed to have made myself forget Hyun-Seo’s death, which really shocked me because I expected the usual stupid American happy ending..having since seen Blood Rain I’ve learned my lesson) might say something about whatever essential “Korean-ness” and reclaiming of traditions could and couldn’t do against the dark side of the “miracle” on the han.

. . . is bizarre for a society that just legalized miniskirts and hot pants a couple of years ago. (Or is it? Maybe it’s precisely what you would expect from such a society. You tell me.)

Well, if something is or has recently been forbidden, people want as much of it as they can get, until they get blase about it. Example: college students in the US binge drinking.

Also you have to wonder how much sex tourism has to do with it . . . that sort of exploitation thrives on power imbalance, and so you often see lots of prostitution and human trafficking where schooling and resources are denied to a vulnerable population and people are politically powerless, whether in a poor part of a rich and powerful country or overall in a poorer and less powerful country. The vultures who do that sort of tourism know this.
In global capitalism also, its a buyer’s market: the buyer, the one with power, forces the transformation of the societies that sell to them. Hence Americanism is in many venues associated with hypersexuality, as it is used in advertising in the States. Although probably other countrie sof the “west” or the “global north” as it has been called doubtless contribute as well, who has been the most evangelical, so to speak, with their culture?

My 2c, of course…

Thanks! (I’m thinking of working it into an academic paper, actually, at some point.)

I hope this post adds to your enjoyment of the film next time around.

Sorry to have misrepresented your opinion of the film. I’ve modified my statements in the first post to reflect your sense more accurately — that there are anti-US images/scenes in the film.

Still, I think you’re reading it a bit too literally. As I see it, the scenes involving Americans aren’t absurd unless you read them literally. You know, as Val commented on part 1 of this post, sometimes a carrot is just a carrot, but it’s very rare that a a giant rubber monster is just a giant rubber monster. Monster movies invite figurative analysis, and in this film, the presence of American military (and of Korean police, and an old-style protester with molotov cocktails in hand, and all that) screams for a historical and political reading.

And once you embark on that, it’s quite difficult to see anyone or anything here without some historical resonance. When you see the film, you see American soldiers in 2000 or in 2006. When I see the film, I see echoes of American military support for dictatorships in Korea — the “nexus of power” I discussed above.

I know something of the decisions the US made about Korea during the dictatorships, and I don’t know exactly how they could have been different and promoted a liberal democracy while keeping the North out — I think it would have been possible, but more difficult than what was actually done — but I do know that Park, an oppressive ruler and torturer/murderer of dissidents was certainly more allied with the US than with his own people, and the US seemed (mostly) to be more willing to take his claims and demands seriously than those of his critics and dissidents. (This is the nexus of power we see very clearly illustrated in that scene I mention, outside of the trailer.) And I do know it’s much harder for South Koreans to justify that than it is for Americans. If we set aside all the apologetics, it was an ugly mess, a brutish dictator was being propped up, and people have a right — and perhaps even an obligation — to resent it. And this, to me, seems to be why the “toxifying” image in the beginning — and the correspondent protests of toxic dumping by Americans in the Han, so much less than Korean polluters as you rightly recognize — gains so much traction here. Like the giant rubber monster, the protests about American pollution are not really about formaldehyde in the river. They’re about history, and sadly won’t do much to protect the Han from native polluters.

(Incidentally, it makes me wonder whether people expect Iraq, in 20 years, to have “gotten over” being smashed to bits because someone in Washington decided it was time to get rid of their now-relatively-toothless but previously US-supported psychopathic leader, and at the same time, why not start a “war on terror”?)

The way that the anti-American sentiment and the pro-democracy movement got intertwined is too complex to get into here — I’m reading about it these days, a little — but it’s an important facet of the logic of this film. Whether it’s a fair observation or not, well… each side will have a different sense of fair, won’t they? I think it’s more interesting to try puzzle out why this Korean movie is constructed how it is, before taking offense at specific images in it. Either the film is anti-American, or else it isn’t. If it isn’t, then the images of Americans — absurd or not — mean something other than their literal apparent meaning, in which case objecting to their literally apparent meaning makes little sense.

(It’s a bit like the idea that scientists should picket Hollywood studios because the figure of the Mad Scientist we see in so many films is so absurd. It is absurd, which is precisely why it’s obvious to most viewers as a figurative depiction of something else — fear of the unknown, anxiety about technological change, etc. Literally reading the mad scientist character is worse than useless; it’s silly.)

It’s your right to dislike monster movies, of course, but The Host has been immensely popular, not just here but also abroad. If you want to really see a crap giant monster movie, one on a par with the Godzilla remake, I think there are better candidates in recent Korean cinema. The Host is far too sophisticated to be dismissed as “crap.”

However, I would like to clarify I never said The Host was an anti-American movie. I said the movie had anti-American scenes in it which is a big difference.

The Host was clearly not anti-American because as I mentioned in my posting Bang took shots at a lot of people in the movie.

What I took exception to was the absurdity of the anti-US scenes. The play on the Yongsan Water Dumping Scandal for example that begins the movie is a fraudulent issue that Bang put into the movie:

http://rokdrop.com/2008/03/18/gi-myths-the-2000-yongsan-water-dumping-scandal/

Why didn’t Bang go after the Korean companies that are really polluting the Han River in the movie such as the lumber companies in the link above that dumped 271 tons of dangerous chemicals into the river?

Bang didn’t want to do that because he wanted to take shots at the US military even on issues that have little to no substance to them.

Like I mentioned in my posting if Bang wants to take shots at the US military for legitimate issues I wouldn’t care. It would have been funny as hell if he had some GI punch out a taxi driver and steal his taxi to escape the monster.

Instead he chose to demagogue anti-US issues that have little to no substance to them.

I also want to point out that in my posting I clearly said The Host is crap and not because of the anti-US scenes:

Even if you aren’t offended by the anti-US scenes the movie is only mildly entertaining any way. The story is stupid, the monster slightly cool, and the acting average. This is the worst movie I have seen my favorite Korean actor Song Kang-ho in yet. There are a few funny scenes but overall nothing memorable about this movie which left me wondering what was all the hype with this movie about anyway? The Host is crap and it is not because of the anti-US scenes in it. It is about as entertaining as the Godzilla remake was. So if you thought Godzilla was cool, you will probably like The Host.

My opinion of the film still stands unchanged.