More longing looks than sci-fi in The Host

MANILA, Philippines – While friends were hopeful that “The Host’s” writer/director Andrew Niccol — who has worked on such films as “Gattaca” and “The Truman Show” — would make this an interesting film, it became quickly clear that their hopes were for naught.

The visuals in the opening are engaging. The cityscapes, the chase scenes, the new concepts, and ideas that the film introduces are all worth appreciating. 

But pretty images are rarely enough to carry a narrative film. And sometimes a thin narrative supported by powerful imagery is more effective than what we have here. We have a lot of cool sci-fi imagery at work but it doesn’t service a strong concept or story. That’s where the problem lies. 

The film’s source material is a novel by the same title, written by one Stephenie Meyer, who gave the world the “Twilight” saga. Make no mistakes about it: if you thought that there were some progression in concerns, you could not be further off. This is all about teeny love triangles (though a different kind, but more later on), longing looks, and an oft-used premise that isn’t sufficiently re-imagined.

Then again, I could be totally wrong. In the theater as I was squirming in my seat and praying for the film to just be over, most of the rest of the audience was obviously engaged, so much so that they were reacting to all of the parts with the longing looks and the soap opera mushiness. 

But eh, let’s just say that I fall far from the target demographic. In your decision to watch this film or not, take that into consideration, as I am sure that this is a film that will appeal to and entertain a particular audience. The obese sci-fi nerd audience, though, probably not so much. 

Watch the trailer here:

We get the familiar sci-fi premise of body-snatchers inhabiting humans and essentially taking over the planet. There are small pockets of resistance (though they do not offer much resistance, as the film shows), but generally Earth is controlled. 

Now there are a lot of questions that one would ask with such a premise. Why take over Earth? What is to be gained? Considering Earth is the 9th planet to be taken, what is the purpose? The “souls” seem to just chill out. Okay, cool, but if they are so chill, then why are they so intent on the subjugation of alien races?

I mean, invading Earth for resources, conquering, whatever, that I get. But it seems that some of the drives here do not align. This especially when some of the “seekers” take such an intense focus in eliminating the “resistance.”

Resistance is another question. While the world has fallen to the aliens, our main character and her family at first keep living in a remote area with their father. But this remote area is accessible by sedan. And they just stay there until the aliens show up, at which point, well, they offer no resistance. I don’t understand the complacency of the resistance, their willingness to merely survive.

Then again, I might be demanding things that the movie is not interested in thinking about. The focus is the titular host and the “soul” that inhabits her. What we have is Saoirse Ronan playing Melanie and Wanda, respectively. Wanda controls the body, but Melanie plays the consciousness. 

This might make for an interesting dynamic, but there are some weird choices made here. Melanie communicates to Wanda, and us, through voiceover. This technique might have made for some comedic moments, but on the whole, it feels like there is just this presence nagging at you for the majority of the film.

When Wanda communicates with Melanie, she speaks out loud, which means that the character is often talking to herself. I understand that she should be speaking as much as possible, but it is an awkward thing to think about.

Beyond the focal point that is Melanie/Wanda, the film’s larger concern — and that which I think bogs it down for me but gives it a winning formula for another audience — is its emphasis on romance. Melanie is in love with Jared, but she’s just a consciousness and can’t stand the idea of her “body” kissing him but it being Wanda who is kissing him.

Wanda though, while her “body” is in love with Jared, is in love with Kyle. Kyle is in love with Wanda, but she is cursed with being in the body of Melanie. So. Yeah. That. 

That is the focus of the movie. This love “triangle” or square, or whatever it is. Two dudes, one girl with two consciousnesses. And while the world has been taken over by aliens and the resistance is hanging out harvesting the fields and whatnot, we’re mostly concerned with these kids in not less than 3 scenes making out in the rain. 

Now don’t get me wrong. I think that great sci-fi stories must necessarily trade in human drama as much as conceptual thinking. It’s the small things, the love found amidst the ruin, the perseverance in the face of the apocalypse, that give us insight into the human condition. The problem with “The Host” is the kind of focus and importance that the romance aspect is given, above anything else. 

Watch interviews with the cast here:

I guess it’s two things: a matter of both balance and taste. Great sci-fi is also grounded in love stories and the like. But “The Host’s” skewing so far in favor of the romance seemed unjustifiable within the larger parameters of the film. This proved further problematic as the world-building that the film had undertaken felt — to me — underdone. 

It didn’t help either that the execution of the romances were rather juvenile and underdone too. It’s never explained why characters like each other apart from, well, they are the last people on Earth and they are attractive. Then again, that should be enough.

So I guess I am still stuck trying to figure this movie out. It bored me to no end, and while its run time is well below two hours, I felt like I had slogged through 3. It had so many unnecessary scenes of slow, longing looks and the like. Yet, I figure, there is someone who is into this kind of film.

In fact, I am sure that I am in the minority of people who don’t get it. But there, it did not work for me because the sci-fi wasn’t solid, the romance didn’t sell to me because it was more melodrama than drama, and the film overall just moved too slowly and without enough drive. 

Yet people in the theater loved it. I could be totally wrong about it, in the way that I could be totally wrong about “Twilight.”

I guess that’s what should help you decide. On what side of the “Twilight” divide do you fall? – Rappler.com

Carljoe Javier doesn’t know why people think he’s a snarky film critic who spends his time dashing the hopes of filmgoers. He thinks he’s not all that bad, really. He teaches at the State U, writes books, and studies film, comics, and video games… Then again, those people could be right.