Good concept, poorly executed.

To all those who have watched it: I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.

Your blood may run cold, but you now find yourself pinioned to the story.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

A bunch of young Japanese terrorists named after weekdays follow the orders of a terrorist named after a month: October. They steal some boxes of bombs from a US Army warehouse (the sign in the movie actually says: weapon wearhouse). They are found by two US soldiers. There's a shooting. A bomb explodes in October's face. He is blinded but alive. That is the opening scene of the movie, after that the plot is quite thin for the rest the "story".The style of the movie is similar to Jean Luc Godard's early films but Koji Wakamatsu makes a film that has the actors reciting political slogans all throughout with random scenes of sex and violence. I am actually not sure if it was meant to be a serious film, but I actually found it quite funny and I enjoyed it as a Z grade pseudo philosophical porn terrorist comedy.Ecstasy of the Angels is definitely not a great film but it was interesting and funny.

The third film I have watched from this director is the most skillful but, perhaps, the most exasperating as well: something of a political allegory, the detail is so obscure, however, that one tends not to care about what happens to any of the characters - members (ambiguously named after week-days) of the various terrorist factions (named after months and seasons) involved, and who may or may not be double-crossing one another! As usual, gratuitous sex and excessive violence are the order of the day and, once again, there are haphazard switches to color which serve no discernible function (but who can tell with a film as pretentious as this one?). Still, the final montage of suicidal bombings is notable...and, in any case, this type of art film - however tested one's patience may be by its gross self-indulgence - cannot be objectively criticized, or easily ignored!

Spoilers herein.I particularly appreciate films whose manner is consistent with its matter. This one is, but the problem is that the overriding notion is deliberate lifelessness. I suppose there is a certain teenage audience for this sort of thing: masochistic narcissism. But once someone has done it -- or even thought about it, it is enough for us all.The idea is life by slogan, by motion. Dry sex. Inherited passion. Emulated life. Confused but committed participants. Pretty tired and tiring stuff. The novelty here is the film is designed the same way as a sort of art-as-politics. Pass on this. It is almost as bad as TeeVee without the plastic giggles.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life

The film is a dated, incoherent, and pretentious rambling about fictional revolutionary, or rather quasi-revolutionary, terrorist group(s) in Tokyo in the sixties. Although there may be some resemblance to early Godard, Wakamatsu seems to be much less accomplished thinker, revolutionary, or craftsman than the French master of the New Wave. Notwithstanding the typically Asian overacting, all the persons in the "plot" act as detached mechanical puppets (perhaps intentionally?). They are not good in making either revolution or love. The frequent sex scenes were quite irritating not only because the participants recited quasi-political slogans, but also due to sometimes awkward choreography or cuts necessitated by the bizarre Japanese censorship law that does not allow a glimpse of pubic hair on the screen.I wonder if the sign "WEAPON WEARHOUSE" on a weapon warehouse in the film is a joke for insiders or rather a testimony on the level of production values in this movie.