Young-Goon works at manufacturing plant assembling radio’s. She also believes she is a cyborg. One day, while working at the factory, she decides to re-charge herself by slashing her wrist and implanting electrical wires into her arm. Her action gets Young-Goon a mental hospital full of bizarre characters. At New World, Young-Goon spends her time listening to the radio, talking with vending machines, and licking the terminals of 9 volt batteries. She soon encounters a guy named Il-Sun. Il-Sun is a thief of souls in the mental hospital. Young-Goon and Il-Sun soon form a strong bond as their odd personalities complements each other perfectly. Unfortunately, Young-Goon becomes gravely ill from malnutrition. Young-Goon doesn't believe cyborgs should eat human food. She soon loses most of her energy and becomes bedridden. Doctors say that Young-Goon has only a few more days to live if she continues her ways. Il-Sun must now find a way to connect to her soul and save her from imminent death.
A girl who thinks she is a combat cyborg checks into a mental hospital, where she encounters other psychotics. Eventually, she falls for a man who thinks he can steal people's souls. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Tal B (br) wrote: The glowing reviews of this film are verging on comically naive. It is blatantly violent anti-Israel propaganda which tries to justify the senseless premeditated killing of a couple of Israelis by Palestinian terrorists. At no point is the act of killing questioned. It is implicit that these assassins must escape punitive consequence for their crime. The ending is totally implausible, an Israeli captain would never hand a loaded handgun to a Palestinian terrorist who then shoots the captain with a Shwartzeneggerian catch phrase as if he is some kind of hero. How do we know this is propaganda without having a thorough grounding in the political situation in Israel? (Aside from the "hero" as murderer.) Establish this for yourselves. Consider the depiction of violence. Whenever a Palestinian kills someone (betrayals within the ranks, Israelis etc) it is presented indirectly offscreen, off camera, from a distance, implied with dialogue and so on. When violence occurs at the hands of the Israelis it is graphic and directly represented. Question the gaze of this movie. Oh, and as a movie? It is clunky and implausible. The acting is not very good, with the exceptions of the female romantic lead which is an highly divisive ploy to humanise the terrorist because he must be a hero if he has the love of a beautiful girl.. This film is interesting as a cultural artefact in pushing the limits of (im)morality. Would you make a film that humanises a death camp guard?
Daniel W (gb) wrote: Very good movie, Poland basically defended Europe from communist influence and Russia. They should be thankful for that.
Randy B (ag) wrote: A rare situation where a small studio film had good production quality and a sub par story. It is usually the opposite. I loved the little production efforts in this film. The animation used to illustrate narrations from the journal were engaging and clever.The story itself was dialouge heavy and vignettes/montages where stretched like some french film. A lot of time is spent dealing with the protagonists loss of his family. The family was never developed to any degree (Not even sure if there names were revealed) So, instead of empathizing with the hero, he just looked like a cry baby. It got so bad at one point that I fell asleep for 10 minutes and didn't miss anything. So, it's worth a watch for cool production aspects, decent acting, and if you can survive the self pity crap, there is a decent story.
Mike V (br) wrote: This should be mandatory viewing in all civics high school courses. Very well done.
Sarah C (ru) wrote: For once, I should've paid attention to the illiterate fuckwits who write reviews on LoveFilm, and given this one a miss. I can only describe it as the offspring of Stephen King's Misery crossed with Alan Wake, unfortunately carrying the best attributes of neither of its parents.
Austin G (ag) wrote: After I bought this on eBay because it was only a buck and change, I will refuse to watch this and try to get it off my shelf only because of what the movie is.
Jared M (es) wrote: A fair British heist movie, good plot with decent acting. Was hoping for a bit more humour but at least the pace kept you interested.
Shelby M (it) wrote: The foreign acting was better than the English speaking people. As far as the story goes I think it drastically over portrays the way Marines handles themselves and is more politically motivated artistic.
Gordon B (br) wrote: One of those offbeat car chase films from the 70's that's filled with fast cars, dumb cops, bikini girls, and likable outlaws. It works as amusing weekend distraction .
Nat G (kr) wrote: Off the back of the hit first film, Disney made this very poor effort, and you can't helping thinking this is just a money making project. The acting is rubbish the plot is rubbish and Herbie doesn't really do anything. It seems Disney have put no effort into it, all the original actors are gone, and they just come up with a lame story to what happened to them. The only thing that makes this worth watching is the last ten minutes, other than that leave this film alone, it will be part of your life you'll never get back.
Joseph C (ca) wrote: Just about every cliche imaginable shows up in this film, especially in their treatment of native Americans. War dances, drum-beating, war paint, horrible dialogue, "him no talk," and a native language that doesn't sound like any known dialect. Overacting by just about everyone except Scott turns this into a parody of western movies, but not the kind I wanted to watch.