Reviews

Initially, GTO is a shonen manga where an ex gang leader, Onizuka Eikichi, is given an opportunity to become a teacher. While it's hard to say what he teaches, he spends much time helping out his students with their personal problems.

He is chaotic, politically incorrect, pervert and violent at times; he shows no fear, drives fast and hits hard. He is also a master in reading souls and dumb at reading minds. He values friendship, courage and dream pursuing.

The story is the same in the manga and in the anime. The viewer can clearly see the cartoon origin: I could even feel the *crows of shame* in several occasions, even if there were none on screen.

It's all overacted, girls are sexy, dialogs are funny, love and death are often at stake. What more would you want from a shonen?

Frankly? more tits... Tomoko sadly lost her original D cup

I had an occasion to watch a scene of this flick, I had no sound. it ROTFLed me: a teenage boy in a cage. Outside, another teenager and mature woman in nightdress fight with kungfu. She wielded a quite large hammer, scraping large chunks of everything it touched.

I caught the title for I had to watch this. Well. It was the only time I laughed for this flick.

You can still have fun with Jigoku Koshien if:

-you are less than 22.(geeks add 4, girls remove 5)

-You gather friends who wish a heavy duty low-budget Japanese no-brainer.

-You drink all available beer.

-go buy more beer and repeat drink.

-If your local laws permits smoking pot, you should consider doing so.

I loved many of the films cited in comments: Bad Taste, Evil Dead, Shaolin Soccer, Army of Darkness, many Monty Python, Battle Royal.

But did NOT enjoy Jigoku Koshien. (and feel that comparison with the latter is an insult to the formers)

Did you see some references to Kourtrajmé in this movie? Because this movie is filled with that. 1st things 1st: What is Kourtrajmé. In french slang it means "short film". Kourtrajmé is a collective of street performers whose main concern are anti racism, playing with symbols, and having fun. Incorrect fun, that is: they play on fear of unknown and violence. Their main medium is unsurprisingly short film and music clips. From now on Kourtrajmé will be written as K for short. I ll list below all the references to K I found in this movie.

Kim Chapiron, director, is from K. Thai is played By Nico Le Phat. He is a director from K. Mainly for clips. Barth (Olivier Barthelemy) can be seen on many clips from Romain Gavras, also from K. Ladj (Ladj Ly) is a director from K. Responsible for a famous (in France) fake documentary about hash pushers: Gofast connexion.

The initial sentence, "God, don't pity them for they know what they do" is a recurring sentence from K. They usually aim it at politician who play hate-mongers and leave suburbs grow with poverty and violence. In the opening scene, the DJ (played by Mouloud, a friend of K, as all(?) the actors) wears a K Tshirt. On his mix table is a picture of a guy missing a tooth; he is Mohamed Mazouz, AKA HiTekk from La Caution, affiliated to K.

At some point, Mouloud yells "Batards de barbares". It is the name of the clip watched by Barth, Eve and Thai. Check out for the soul rewrite by Mai Lan "Je t immole gentiment" (I immolate you kindly) with the crudest/grossest lyrics ever("I dig your grandma s grave and ra*e her and if u r not happy with it I ra*e your dad too")

At some point their car is blocked by a pack of goats. Then Barth takes the billy-goats goatee and starts singing "par la barbichette". It is a french kiddie song/game in which both players hold the other s chin. The first to laugh gets a slap. "La barbichette" also is another short from Kim Chapiron in which Barthelemy and Cassel use this game to determine who is gonna help mum.

In fact, the all film plays with our fears of the unknown: either the gangster style of the heroes, or the creepiness/racism of countryside people. Hence, this flick explores all the clichés of these groups.

you might want to see more from K. then surf kourtrajme dot com

This movie is a kind of documentary relating the early history of the Eiffel Tower: From the planning to its first military use.

The movie mixes scenes played by actors, cheap CGI views of the Eiffel tower being built, still images from back then, not to forget French Cancan performances. For the *charm of Paris* thing probably.

Some interesting points are covered such as technical building stuff, Panama Canal connexion. I had 1 or 2 smiles at historical points: a nepotist politician, the construction halted twice with workers on strike... so cliché of France! Main annoying point: the narrator tends to explain a point just before the scene is played by actors.

Maybe you wanna know more about the building, the man (Gustave Eiffel) or the Parisian 1890s fashion? Then this documentary is for you. Otherwise, you could easily find a worthier movie.

I generally don't like this kind of movie: based on a true story. Because you get a misled view of a real event. The *reality* is often an excuse for a film to be weak.

Here, these rules are not broken.

The story is about the "gang des postiches"; its rise and fall. Gangster d'amour style.

The movie is oddly long for a french one: 2hrs. Oddly paced also: After a couple of bank burglaries, scenes move from one point to another without any warning, save for flashbacks which are B&W. Elusions are also used to a point where it s a bit confusing.

It is funny however to see the media coverage of the gang's activities: they are really from the real life newspapers and TV news. And they tend to be pro-gangsters. It seems so weird in those post 2k1 years.

Also, is enjoyable how the little mystery at the end of the movie is explainable with knowledge of real life french criminal news from 2k4

I almost died of boredom during this movie.

It doesn't stand on any point of view. The plot is terrible: vikings cross the Atlantic in order to kill indians. They don't seem to prey on anything. Only kill and occasionally rape. They hate indians so much that they come a 2nd time fifteen years later to kill the survivors.

The visuals are overall good but lack of innovation.

Countless flaws on historical details; and weather; and any domain in fact.

The script and the characters are terrible. As an example I d say that a viking is viciously wounded by Ghost, but later on, when he has many opportunities to take revenge, he is just absent of the movie.

Action scenes are rather good, but don't make any effort to be believable. Its is all filmed in very short scenes, closed up; so the viewer may be surprised by such and such event, but apart from the hero, everyone else is always as surprised as the viewer. This lame trick is used at least 40 times.

Some commentators blamed that the tribes were cliché hence the flick was racist. I don't agree with that. In fact the good guys say "Vikings have hatred. They have it in their veins. They cannot be different." hence the flick is racist.

What a dead bore!

I just saw this movie and was really disappointed. I just don't understand the hype on this movie. OK, the plastic is perfect, but the movie is only plastic: slow motions, soundtrack, fights... But. The fights are highly unrealistic. For example: the first mêlée is a charge. Persians attack and Spartans block with their shields. Instead of being hack and slash, it is a push game. I just cant get it. The overall thrill factor of the fights hardly reaches a level of 1 on a scale of 10.

This movie is based on the Thermopyles battle where an alliance of 7000 Greeks coming from 31 independent cities including 1000 (not 300) Spartans and led by Leonidas the 1st fought more than 200.000 Persians. No oracle forbid this battle. The number of 300 really was the number of Spartan warriors remaining while they knew the battle was lost. The historic value of this movie is worth 3 because of the betrayal of Elephant-man which is true.

What are the values shown in this movie? To my opinion, it has to be understood as a "support GIs in Irak" underlying message: The Persians are the evil barbaric Muslims. Spart represents the democracy that stand but does not surrender. The evil oracle receiving gold to betray Leonidas represents the anti patriotic media asking for the end of the war. I could continue this parallel for long, but I wont. I will only add that I see ( Yeah, it is my opinion and you are allowed not to agree) a major difference between Thermopyles and Irak: Spartans and generally Greeks defended their land against Persia, while GIs are invading Iraki land. The subtlety of the political message is worth 2.

Hence the global note I gave this movie: 2.

Watch out... For something else.

King Kong 2005 is a great adventure/thriller movie. And it needed to be.

It has nothing more to show: the story is full of flaws; the characters are as shallow as possible. But action movies are not supposed have these points right.

So why care about it? Because it is three hours long. If I spend this time, I hope I get things to think about... Like "would I have done the same?" But none of that. Instead, I found myself asking "Why are all species on Skull Island giants (snakes, lizards, apes, bats, mosquitoes, centipedes, etc...) except humans?"

This movie would need major cuts like the trunk balancing scene, at least one giant insect swarm fight, and all the useless scenes with Hayes & Jimmy. Once it is two hours long, it is fine.

This movie can be seen different ways, as one can check reviewing other's comments.

Well, its a kind of love story. But it's really gross (I don't spoil, if I mention that a girl sings while fellatio'ing in order to get unstuck; do I?) For all the rest, the film is classic: the heroes are cute girls, quite rich, live in SF, talk about boys, road-trip to meet love...

The thrash factor is really important for this film is not meant for everyone. But its FUN! Most of the jokes would have been classic if the main characters were single boys: when they get undressed they apologize for their awfully old panties; or have a very-old-and-rotten-and-worms-ridden-pizza at the rear of the car; for examples. These scenes with cute girls instead are somehow surrealistic. Some scenes are beyond that.

This movie asked me: "could you accept a girl that would behave as you do?"

I just regret the ending.