Lynn (22) lives with her brother in Berlin. There she enjoys the advantages of family life, without really feeling involved in it. She does not have any precise aim in life, but manages to awaken the interest of many people with her direct and spontaneous character. Her boyfriend David is very different: he is entirely engrossed in his very disciplined swimming training for the world championships. David does not intend to allow himself to be distracted by the complicating factors of a relationship with Lynn. When Lynn, working behind the till of restaurant, meets the Japanese student Koji, everything gets more complicated. They can't exchange many words, but it is soon clear that their moments together mean a lot to both of them.
Lynn (22) lives with her brother in Berlin. There she enjoys the advantages of family life, without really feeling involved in it. She does not have any precise aim in life, but manages to ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Phil H (gb) wrote: I presume this film must be made up of various bits n bobs from Baum's sequel books as I don't believe there was a prequel story/book written. All his stories were set after the original [i]Wizard of Oz[/i] so I'm guessing this must be a lot of artistic license?Back to Oz we go, for the third time, question is, is this adventure as good as the previous two? The first is a silver screen classic, the second was a dark but highly imaginative twist with superb characters. This time we re-enter Oz guided by horror maestro Sam Raimi...and boy can you see it.First impressions were simply, they're copying the original, starting off in black n white then bursting into colour once we reach Oz, cute, but its been done. The main thing you notice is obviously the visuals, upon touchdown in Oz we are greeted with (as expected) huge splashes of colour and shiny things, a glistening Emerald City, colourful animals, clear blue skies and perfect fairytale costumes.I must admit they have recreated the look of the classic original nicely. The yellow brick road looks great, the familiar scenery of fields and wooden fences hark back nicely to when we saw Dorothy walk past them and we have all the chirpy quirkiness of the Munchkins. I won't deny there are some lovely landscape's on display, rainbow skylines and the weird and wonderful flowers n fauna of Oz dazzling your optical senses. It just a damn shame the CGI is so utterly average throughout with awful bluescreen/artificially superimposed actors against it.What's so stupid is the fact Oz lands in the land of Oz and within five minutes he's been brought to the Emerald City, hailed as the new King and sent off on this mission. Everyone thinks he's this wizard sent to save Oz and without a doubt the King. So The wizard (played poorly by Franco) goes off on his mission to destroy the evil witch and picks up a few odd friends along the way to help him. An annoying, flying, bad CGI monkey and a sweet yet gradually annoying little girl doll made of china...nice idea, nicely envisioned, but her lippy personality isn't funny. Kinda sounds familiar no? regular dude dumped in a strange fantasy world, now he's gotta save that world. Army of Dar...naah couldn't be.The other thing that got me was the fact Kunis' character falls for Oz the minute she sees him. Then when he goes off to find the evil witch she gets all upset, so much so that when she finds out he's flirting with the other witch he's suppose to destroy, she turns to evil! So she's a bit delicate then! falls in love, gets heart broken and turns to the dark side all within a few hours of meeting some guy!To be honest I really don't think Raimi was the right choice to direct this film. It swings from being quite sweet in places as it should be, to some outright soft horror moments! Raimi clearly not being able to resist his [i]Evil Dead[/i] days. The flying baboons are pretty darn scary for kids if you ask me, since when did the evil witches flying hordes get some monstrous?!! Then there's Weisz's ending...whoa! oh and graveyards? really?The acting is also dreadful, yes I realise its a sweet fable but come on, Franco is terrible and totally miscast (still at least its a change from seeing Depp who I'm sure was gonna pop up at any moment). The guy has no charm no wonder and he's not funny, he plays it too snively for this character, he's unlikeable.Kunis is made up waaay too much for the green skinned evil witch, she's sexy for Pete's sake! the evil witch ain't suppose to give the adult male audience a bonner. Plus I gotta say she seems really really violence obsessed here, wanting to tear her enemies apart and make the yellow brick road run red with the blood of the goodies...Jesus! kids film here. The only people who actually look the part and put in a good show are all the extras playing Munchkins Quadlings, Tinkers and Winkie Guards, miles better than the main cast, I guess.I think the problem here is the film can't quite decide what direction to go in. Its not entirely an innocent sweet musical like the original and its not as character driven or imaginative as 'Return to Oz'. Being a typical modern film they just can't help themselves with over the top effects, silly action, the odd explosion, lots of talk of death and killing and way too much hokey sterile CGI. The film even turns into 'Star Wars' at the end with a dark side force lighting battle.On top of this the film seems to border on being almost a parody of the material source, too much of a comedy, too much mockery of the material eg. when the Munchkins try break out in song Oz shouts at them to stop as if to say...lets not go down the soppy wet musical route. Its not as bad as the Burton 'Alice in Wonderland' fiasco but it sure as hell comes close CGI wise. On the whole Oz does look nice when using real sets and real objects but that's it. Like other sequels/prequels of old franchises they manage to recreate the look of the old films brilliantly, but the rest of the content is just very average and merely shows how good the older films are. There are now talks of a sequel! how can there be a sequel?!
Claire T (mx) wrote: hated it, I thought it would better than that, the first two are the best, I didn't like this film I thought it was crap, I didn't like this film, it starred Michael J. Fox, Hugh Laughie and Geena Davis
Maya L (br) wrote: Cute but too much but told like a story.
Chloe C (us) wrote: i'm beginning to wonder if this film is a jostled reflection of the modern New Yorker... and infidelities and self-serving people abound.
Vince N (ca) wrote: "I give it a 10 a fucking 10!!"
Sharon H (ru) wrote: This is fun! Mid life crisis type stuff...
Brett W (br) wrote: Ah, Starcrash; the bizarro-world, Italian acid-trippy version of Star Wars. What separates this gem from the flock of other flunky ripoffs is just how eye-poppingly vibrant it is. Yes, the acting is bad, the effects are bad, the story is bad, but it's all so spectacularly bad that it's difficult to believe that anyone involved was taking this seriously. And so the film has a certain honest quality to it, like a slightly less goofy Monty Python skit. It doesn't feel like they're trying to pass anything off as "convincing" and so you can relax and fall into the absurdity of it all. And now... stuff that's awesome about Starcrash:1. Caroline Munro in a leather bikini (It's like Leia couldn't find a change of clothes after Jabba's palace). It's cold in the vacuum of space, a titty bit nipply, if you know what I mean, heh, heh!2. Caroline Munro in leather bikini fighting other women in leather bikinis 3. Elle: The Earnest P. Worrell version of C-3PO4. The Star Wars theme music that always stops just before copyright infringement.5. The grown up, greasy, cavemen version of the ewoks.6. A young David Hasselhoff and his mushroomy hair.7. Akton: A.K.A. Frampton Comes a Jedi8. Akton kills a bunch of ewok cavemen with a lightsaber; a scene that George Lucas would later recycle for Anakin's sand people massacre/tantrum.9. Count Zarth Arn... a character that George Lucas would later recycle (twice actually) for the prequel trilogy.10. in fact, the entire second half of this film is eerily similar to the first 20 minutes of Revenge of the Sith. 11. It's better than all three prequels combined... and actually feels more Star Wars-y and has emotions and mild suspense and real sets. 12. A space station that looks like a giant hand.13. Greatest villain line in history: "Kill! Kill! Over there!" (points in direction enemy cluster)14. when dudes get hit by laserblasts they explode like frozen turkeys on Independence day. 15. David Hasselhoff's male camel toe around the 1h20m mark.16. Space stations in this galaxy look like the insides of old TV's17. There are no Jar Jar Binks's or farting or burping aliens.18. A higher-than-a-kite Christopher Plummer, in every frame, looking as though he's being forced to recite lines by terrorists off screen. stuff that's not awesome about Starcrash:1. Caroline Munro puts that stupid plastic bag jumpsuit over her bikini.
Tit M (ru) wrote: film horreur absurde et decale quelques bonnes sequences et une bonne realisation
Bill T (es) wrote: A bit of a ridiculous ride, that seemed to inspire (or at least elements to steal from) for the Armageddon movie. Aliens are making life difficult for The People Of Earth, so 2 groups of scientists in two rockets are dispatched to the Alien's hiding spot on the moon to blow it up. They do just that, and then we think it's the end, but for some odd reason it isnt. Looks like an additional 15 mins were added on from outtakes and, from what it looks like, a russian sci-fi movie (!!) to pad the whole thing out, which in combination, is unneccessary and hilarious at the same time. Fascinating to watch for that, and yes, the Armageddon comparisons.
Kyle B (nl) wrote: It's a really well shot movie with beautiful cinematography and well directed tense scenes but in the end, it was kind of a let down. The performances are fine, Jon Voight can do little wrong in my book, and the writing is ok.
Ruben A (mx) wrote: have to read the book so yea
Rowdy V (ru) wrote: Let me start by saying this movie was hilarious. In fact, this probably one of the funniest movies I have ever watched. However, this was supposed to be a horror movie, and horror movies are supposed to be scary, or at least suspenseful. This movie was neither. If you go into this movie expecting a comedy, you will leave satisfied, but if you go in expecting a horror movie, as I did, you will be very disappointed
Bradley G (fr) wrote: Did you see You've Got Mail? Because if you did, you have seen this....same movie. Acting was good, the story...(Yawn)
Chris W (fr) wrote: garbage, dont waste your time seriously. just dont. its a crap story, with crap action, and no suspense because you always know whats about to happen. dont for the love of god ever play this movie
Joel C (nl) wrote: The critics suck! This was a good movie!