MovieChat Forums > The Perfect Host (2011) Discussion > Are we supposed to be pulling for John??...

Are we supposed to be pulling for John?? spoilers

posted 13 years ago by S6587M
6 replies | jump to latest

I certainly didn't feel sorry for him. At least not for the things Warwick did to him. Every single bit of that was brought onto him by himself. He lured his way into the man's house by lying to him, with the intention of (more than likely) holding him hostage or murdering him if worse came to worse. Then threatens him for trying to clean up his floor while the dude lounges around his place like an animal. Then Warwick gets the upper hand and gives him what he has coming to him. So because of that we're supposed to feel bad for John? IMO it was a lesson well learned. And it was done in a humorous and innocent way. He didn't even actually end up getting hurt. Oh, and THEN John attempts to murder him! Not knowing that the weapon he was using was fake.

[–] mjd_subs2 13 years ago

Vigilantism is one thing, but Warwick didn't do those things to John because of his bad actions. Your argument only works if Warwick knew who John was BEFORE he restrained him and played his silly head games. In that case, Warwick would not have any of the tools and tricks already in his possession.

[–] transmentalist 11 years ago

Your argument only works if Warwick knew who John was BEFORE he restrained him and played his silly head games.

He did; he had a whole file on John.

In that case, Warwick would not have any of the tools and tricks already in his possession

The tools were for whoever stumbled into Warwick's house. It just happened to be the nearby bank robber

[–] kimisan 11 years ago

I didn't feel sorry for him, either. I kept waiting for Warwick to say, "Uh, so it's ok for you to try to kill me, but when the tables are turned, suddenly I'm the bad guy?"

Plus, I think it's scientifically impossible not to root for David Hyde Pierce in ANY role he's in. :)

[–] HumanTheONLyRace 10 years ago

I certainly didn't feel sorry for him. At least not for the things Warwick did to him. Every single bit of that was brought onto him by himself. He lured his way into the man's house by lying to him, with the intention of (more than likely) holding him hostage or murdering him if worse came to worse. Then threatens him for trying to clean up his floor while the dude lounges around his place like an animal. Then Warwick gets the upper hand and gives him what he has coming to him. So because of that we're supposed to feel bad for John? IMO it was a lesson well learned.

I agree w/ you wholeheartedly, a mans property is his last safe haven. You enter a mans home through lies and threaten to take his life when he was just being nice, even if was a psychotic killer.

*beep* John, you steal from others, then enter someones haven and threaten their life? No sympathy for *beep* who enter another mans domain. The only reason is if there's cause to do so if he's logically suspected of a crime.

This has prob. been done before, but I've only recently noticed writers trying to make the audience love *beep* An opposite example or an example of a bad guy being understood is the darth vader line, he had a *beep* up past, that gave him reason to be angry, but he wasn't made to be loved, darth vader was to be feared, he killed at the hint of weakness, you could hate vader if you didn't know his story line.

I understand its just film, but the idea that people(writers) now try to make morons acceptable is crazy, and he was a coward, the dude let him go and he still tried to kill him? Wow? Wtf? Cowards rob banks, cowards break into other peoples homes, cowards try to kill someone that offers them a hand.

*beep* John, anyone that liked him, anyone like him, coward.

[–] lulupalooza 10 years ago

I agree. John was absolutely despicable. I found myself rooting for Warwick the minute he let John into his home with such generosity. When he let John go after the chess game, and John chooses to let his sensitive ego get in the way and tried to kill Warwick in a knee-jerk emotional reaction (*eye-roll*) , I thought John should get whatever he deserved from Warwick. I wasn't necessarily rooting for his death, but mind games and bondage before calling the cops seemed totally appropriate at that point.

I did not like how they tried to make John seem like the normal, good guy - we're supposed to think he has a heart of gold because he was stealing (as the patsy) for his girlfriend's surgery? Doesn't work because of his cruel actions with Warwick.

This mediocre film had many plot devices and it required too much suspension of disbelief to be satisfying. That is why there are so many postings debating the issues.

"Don't get chumpatized!" - The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (2007)

[–] Freddyfan951 10 years ago

Maybe the writer's were trying to make people root for Warwick with an unsympathetic, bastard of a main character. It's interesting when the good/bad guy paradigm is turned on it's head, and i would be surprised if they writers actually thought people would like and relate with John.
I completely agree with the sentiment here. There was never a moment in the film where i liked that manipulative, lying, thieving, selfish person. Warwick was just being kind, friendly, and helpful. But then John starts threatening to kill him, verbally abusing him, and kicks him for cleaning up the bloody mess he left. Had he not done that, i don't think Warwick would have decided to dish out some payback.
It's basically common knowledge that if you become a threat to someone in their own house, they have the right to defend themselves and retaliate (home-owners shooting attempted robbers/murderers. John deserved allot of what he got and more, i was almost disappointed that Warwick let him go. He should have been thankful for being spared the consequences of his actions (and possibt murder) instead of getting butt-hurt and sending the incriminating photo.

Are we supposed to be pulling for John?? *spoilers*

Are we supposed to be pulling for John?? spoilers