Abunai Sisters: Koko & Mika Reviews

Today, November 16th 2020 I came to know about Abunai Sisters and being the way I am I just had to watch it, add it to my list and write about it. What I’m doing here is completely pointless because nobody in their right mind would bother to watch it or talk about it and thus nobody will read this. Newer viewers wouldn’t bother with it mainly because they wouldn’t know about it and also because it’s old by now.

As for the rest, they wouldn’t bother with it because a look at the poster, the score and the synopsis is enough to tell you that it’s not worth watching, even those like me who ocassionaly like to torture themselves and check out some of the worst anime of all times wouldn’t normally bother with it because it’s not as infamous as other titles such as Mars of Destruction, Skelter Heaven, MD Geist, Pupa and the likes.

But even if it’s pointless I’m writing this because I can and because I wanted to write a review for quite some time. And hey, if at least one person read this, then it was worth it.

With that said, there’s really nothing much to say about it, one look at the poster and the synopsis and you get the deal, two female agents who somehow are also celebrities protect some crystal from the villain from Spirited Away and her companion, a pervy version of Mr. Incredible’s boss. No really, the bad guys look like them.

Here’s where the first problem arise, how can secret agents be celebrities at the same time? Shouldn’t they be discrete? Well I guess being famous could be a facade, who would suspect of two famous women to be secret agents? Even then they sure don’t seem to be secret agents, as all they do in the show has more to do with their celebrity life rather than their work as secret agents. The series don’t tell you anything about what is this agency their work for, which is their rank there and what do they do there, heck, it doesn’t even appear.

You won’t even know who their enemies are and why do they want the “booby stone” as they call it, ok it is mentioned in the show that said stone brings eternal beauty or something but it sure doesn’t look like it when you watch the series.

You won’t even know why are these sisters celebrities, as all they do is goof around in their big mansion, located in some private tropical island with the worst security of all times as it allows the bad guys to appear and reappear every single time. They never sing, or dance, or do anything really. No personality nor backgrounds at all.

And of course, nothing in the series makes sense as the sisters have booby powers which allows them to increase their sizes and attack with them, while also have a booby alarm as they call it, which usually works, warning them about danger, but sometimes it doesn’t for plot convenience. Not story at all either.

But look at me, talking seriously about a show which clearly does not require to do so as is just a silly comedy, I am just as ridiculous as the series itself. Well, even if I am to judge the show that way, it is also terrible on that level, as the jokes consist in repeating the exact same formula in each one of the 10 episodes, the sisters are just chilling around, the bad guys appear with bad disguises and try to take the stone, the booby alarm sounds and make the sisters’ breasts bounce like crazy and they stop the bad guys with their own gadgets, the end.

There was an instance where, although the formula and the result were the same, they did it by playing volleyball which was fine for a change, until they ruined even this by doing the exact same thing in the exact next episode, only with ping pong, thank you so much show, for ruining even the tiniest variety you had.

If I am to compare this with episodic cartoons which repeat the same formula from…just about any era, even them have more variety with how their formulas play out in each episode. Heck, there’s not even a reason to compare it to cartoons, there’s Pucca, which began as a 2 minute per episode webseries, meaning, it has shorter episodes than this, and even that one has more variety than this.

The jokes themselves, apart from the nonsensical situations, have to do with an attemtp to make fun of celebrities’ life and first world problems, but it’s so explicit about it to the point of telling you the joke directly while the character saying it looks at the screen, it’s not subtle at all, thus is not funny at all, thus it fails as a parody.

I can’t even recognize the ecchi in the show as unique or creative, as we’ve seen boobs making crazier things and being even more deformed in anime, both before and after, even the likes of Valkyirie Drive: Mermaid, Manyuu Kikenchou, Seikon no Qwaser, Queen’s Blade, Eiken and just about any ecchi you either know or don’t know about is way better than this at least on that level and you are more excused to watch them than Abunai Sisters.

The sisters themselves are based after two real japanese sisters who are apparently models by the way, and thankfully they don’t look anything like their counterparts in the show. I don’t know what’s the deal with those sisters and if they were at the peak of their popularity in 2009 when this came out to excuse its existence but this show surely doesn’t work even as a promotional material, it makes them look stupid, superficial, and just plain ugly. We’re talking about Charlie’s Angel videogame for PSX levels of bad publicity here, if not even worse.

As for the production values, what’s there to say? They are atrocious on every aspect but if you are cursed enough to be reading this, don’t make the mistake of thinking that this is the worst CGI of all time. There are worse looking cartoons and videogames as well as there are worse looking anime, such as Urda and Digimon X-Evolution. Even then, those products are excused for coming out way earlier than this series and Urda was even made by a bunch of unprofessional noobs, while Abunai Sisters came out in freaking 2009 and was made by such a big studio like Production I.G, which made visual masterpieces both before and after this monstruosity. There just isn’t any show by them that looks as bad as this.

The sound is even worse, as there is barely music which is forgettable at best, and the sound effects are old and weak by 2009 standards. But the worst aspect is the voices, apparently there is a version with normal voices, but no, in the only one avalaible online they sound like Alvin and the Chipmunks, the fact that is english dub only makes it even worse because there are no subtitles to help you understand what is it that they are supposed to be saying.

Ultimately, being a Production I.G work is the definitive factor that makes Abunai Sisters so bad and so disappointing, if it was made earlier and by a worse studio, I would give it even a 2 out of 10. No really, once you watched so much bad stuff as I did you appreciate that, as a parodical comedy, this atrocity at least does not try to take itself seriously in the slightest, unlike things like Mars of Destruction, Skelter Heaven, Roots Search X, MD Geist, Midori, Pupa, Ousama Game, Evil or Live, Dies Irae, Hand Shakers or the most recent Kyouchuu Rettou or Gibiate (among lots of other examples), which try to be either serious, or dramatic, or deep, or epic, or horror and they all fail terribly at it. Nor does it insult a good and popular IP, as Souten no Ken does with Hokuto no Ken.

Even if I am to compare it with another “comedy” is at least better than Twinkle Nora Rock me for making slightly more sense and for having actual animation.

Thus Abunai Sisters is better than all of them for not even trying, but even then it does not deserve more than the lowest score from me for how badly made it is and for how much better stuff there is, it makes even the Charlie’s Angels PSX game look bad (and not terrible), it makes the Charlie’s Angels movies seem passable because the action has more stakes, way better battle choreography and gorgeous women, it makes the Totally Spies! cartoon series seem passable for having better comedy and more explored characters, then there are the ecchi shows which I already mentioned that are simply far more appealing than this.

Heck, even if I try to think in the people with the craziest and the weirdest of fetishes, there is a lot of stuff such as inflation in certain websites which makes this look tame, thus Abunai Sisters does not have any value even for them and excuses my score. (If you are not one of them and you don’t know what that is then good for you, now pay attention to a warning like this for once in your life and don’t google it, seriously, I wish I was as lucky).

Acting here is classic, fearless. Burton and Taylor have rarely been as good as they are at digging so deep into these characters that, especially with Burton, we can't imagine these people being anyone else. It takes a little to get used to Segal and Sandy Dennis (the latter because her character isn't quite as "deep" as the others), but then again their characters are the uncomfortable outsiders, "us" as one might say (however, as the play peels the layers away from the characters they're all rotten and ultimately very vulnerable instead of just "normal").

A descent into madness, watching this film is like having your head compressed in vice. As an audience member, we are invited into the twisted life on an older married couple, whose life is shrouded in a strange ambiguity. Based on the play by Edward Albee, we are turned into voyeuristic spectators, enthralled by the hostility of George and Martha, played with magnificent chemistry by real life husband and wife Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. It is through the eyes of the younger couple, played by George Segal (later famed for his role in the under-rated sitcom Just Shoot Me) and Sandy Dennis that we learn of the troubled marriage, fuelled by bitter rows and personal attacks, often conveyed through a thin veil of comedic jest. As the film progresses, we are drawn deeper into the dark and cynical world of the older couple, much like their unsuspecting guests, who perhaps learn more about themselves throughout the evening than they would have cared for.

This film has a wonderful rhythm, with a fantastically progressive plot. Not many motion pictures can captivate its audience based on few locations and a dialogue heavy script, yet this film succeeds, despite its often dense themes. It’s a troubling experience and one you must commit to, or else you will find yourself unable to fully move with the flow of the film. As the film continues, we are dragged into an increasingly surreal plotline, making this one of the most surreal non-fantasy related films of all time. There are no particular unrealistic moments, setting it apart from the surrealism explored by the likes of David Lynch and Luis Buñuel. Instead, it draws upon the strangeness you find in everyday life to turn this into a tense exploration into the lives of these characters. Speaking from personal experience, I once went into work to find everything had been put into a surreal blender and whilst, of course, there was nothing metaphysically strange, it certainly felt off-kilter. This is much like the film, all of which is within the realms of the real world, only it feels uncanny.



The acting, as you would expect with two Hollywood royals in the mix, is superb. Not a bad performance in the film. Burton and Taylor were born for their roles, each delivering painfully emotional performances. Burton is the extravagant and provoking husband, similar in ways to the popular television character Gregory House (House M.D), only far more perturbing. Taylor is the unbalanced and bitchy wife, who takes no shame in humiliating her husband. Opposite them are Segal and Dennis, each delivering worthy performances. Segal is restrained, each line spoken with a subtle emotion. This juxtaposes with Dennis, who is perfectly acute, delivering a hyperbolic performance that, in any other film, would come across as over-acting, whereas here it is entirely necessary. As far as ensembles go, this is right up there with 12 Angry Men (1957), Magnolia (1999) and Pulp Fiction (1994).

The directing is sublime. Mike Nichols, who would later find huge success with his better known masterpiece The Graduate (1967), doesn’t ever over-play a scene with too many unnecessary close-ups or quick shot successions, instead favouring a more steady directorial style similar to that of Kubrick and Lang. The camera will pan, track and remain static only ever being obtrusive when needed. His style isn’t as abrasive as the more mainstream films of the time, preferring to compliment the themes of the film, rather than over power them.



It’s the screenplay that is the strongest link, though. Each line is a masterpiece in its own right, and that isn’t an exaggeration. Its vivid characterisation and biting, cynical and darkly humorous dialogue makes this one of the best written films of all time. The play on words, risqué innuendos and even flat out unconcealed brusque references, helped propel the American film industry out of the dictatorship known as the Hays code. This was amongst one of the most important of all sixties US films, alongside Bonnie and Clyde and its then unseen portrayal of bloody criminal violence. These two gave audiences glimpses of what was to come and I suspect movie-goers would have sat in shock. Even by today’s standards, some of the scenes are unsettlingly blunt. Based on the Edward Albee play, Ernest Lehman fought with producers to allow him to adapt the play as truthfully as possible and to keep the artistic vision uncompromised. To say he was a success would be an understatement.

Everything about the film is perfect, including the title itself, alluding to famed English writer Virginia Woolf, who had a lot of wise insights about gender and relationships. As a result, the title is a fantastic, sharp and witty accompaniment to the themes of the film.




Simply put, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is a daring classic and a true testament to the new outlook of life that was breeding in the sixties, with the help of such cultural icons as The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. With its deeply Freudian themes and bleak yet comical study of human nature, this is an important, iconic and unforgettable classic.

God! I was totally blown away by this film! I have wanted to watch this film for ages but the DVD wasn't released until the very end of 2009. It was shocking and intense to watch. I found it moving at a fast pace right the way through. This film reminded me a lot of American Beauty and A Streetcar Named Desire mostly because of the intense chemistry between the two main characters. To be honest, I would call it a black comedy like American Beauty where you unnecessarily laugh. I love films set in one day and this is definitely the best. This film was based on the play of the same name which was premiered in 1962.


Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? tells the story of a middle-aged married couple George and Martha coming home from a party at her father's house. The two of them clearly care deeply for each other, but events have turned their marriage into a nasty battle between two disenchanted, cynical enemies. Even though the pair arrives home at two o'clock in the morning, they are expecting guests: the new math professor and his wife. This is another one of those rare films where every single actor in this film deliver Oscar worthy performances. Elizabeth Taylor's performance as Martha was absolutely fantastic!! Taylor's performance was psychologically disturbing like Annette Bening's as Carolyn Burnham in American Beauty. Taylor's performance has dethroned Vivien Leigh as my favourite performance by an actress in a leading role. Martha is the 52-year-old daughter of the president of New Carthage University. She is married to George, though disappointed with his aborted academic career. She attempts to have an affair with Nick. Richard Burton's performance as George was absolutely FANTASTIC as well! George is a 46-year-old member of the history department at New Carthage University. George is married to Martha, in a once loving relationship now defined by sarcasm and frequent acrimony. George Segal's performance was awesome too! Nick has just become a new member of the biology faculty at New Carthage University. He is 28 years old, good-looking, Midwestern, and clean-cut. He is married to Honey. Sandy Dennis was awesome as Honey. Honey is the petite, bland wife of Nick. She is 26 years old, has a weak stomach, and is not the brightest bulb of the bunch.


Mike Nichols has always been a director of dramas and comedies. Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? was Nichols's feature film debut as director and it is one of the best debuts of all time if not the best. This is another way where Virginia Woolf is similar to American Beauty: top-notch Oscar nominated directing debut like Mendes in 1999 who won Best Director. It received 13 Oscar nominations and it is one of the four films that received that amount of Oscar nominations that was nominated Best Picture but never won it. Others were Mary Poppins, The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring and The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button. It won 5 out of those 13 nominations. It won Best Leading Actress (Elizabeth Taylor), Best Supporting Actress (Sandy Dennis), Best Art Direction Black-And-White, Best Cinematography Black-And-White and Best Costume Design Black-And-White. It was nominated for Best Leading Actor (Richard Burton), Best Supporting Actor (George Segal), Best Director (Mike Nichols), Best Film Editing, Best Music Original Music Score, Best Picture 1966, Best Sound and Best Adapted Screenplay.


Overall, Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? is an absolutely fantastic drama that was very intense to watch all the way through that has a very emotional climax. An almost PERFECT film and is now one of my favourite films of all time.

"You take the trouble to construct a civilization, to build a society based on the principles of... of principle. You make government and art and realize that they are, must be, both the same. You bring things to the saddest of all points, to the point where there is something to lose. Then, all at once, through all the music, through all the sensible sounds of men building, attempting, comes the Dies Irae. And what is it? What does the trumpet sound? Up yours."

One of the greatest directorial debuts in cinematic history came from Mike Nichols who helmed this 1966 firestorm of emotion and gripping drama, faithfully adapted from Edward Albee's famous play. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is a compelling, powerful character study of four contemptible characters brought together for an unforgettable night of booze, cigarettes, tension and the edification of secrets. Nichols' auspicious debut feature is a microcosm of human relationships in all their arduous complexities.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is a moral modernist fable that hits a raw nerve in audiences for its sheer emotional brutality and the utilisation of profanity (as a matter of fact, this was the first film in history to have the term "bugger" spoken in its dialogue).
This is undeniably a love it or hate it affair. The film is strangely riveting and potent, but it won't likely brighten one's day. It's all-out drama from the first frame 'til the last. It'd be fair to say it gets quite excruciating at times due to the lack of variety and the occasionally head-aching nature of the proceedings. It's relentless realism, infused with heavy adult themes and a depressing inversion of the idyllic 1960's married couple image. By all accounts, it's extremely hard to swallow. Even Kathleen Turner (who starred in a Broadway run of the play) wrinkled her nose at the mere mention of the film version. While not particularly enjoyable, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? boasts four fine performances (all of which were nominated for Academy Awards) and the atmosphere is masterful.

This noir-ish drama chronicles one profane and agonising night in the pathological marriage of two tortured souls: middle-aged History professor George (Burton) and his carping wife Martha (Taylor). After a party, George and Martha return home before welcoming another couple for a late-night nightcap: Biology professor Nick (Segal) and his naïve young bride Honey (Dennis). The night soon transforms into a harrowing descent into the private lives of these two couples. Over the course of this night (fast becoming early morning) the polished veneer of the hosts deteriorates grotesquely, and the character begins to crumble both mentally and physically. As Martha becomes brutal and abusive, and as George responds in questionable ways, the horrified Nick and Honey realise they could be witnessing a troubling preview of what their married lives may eventually become.

Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton had appeared together years earlier in the failed epic Cleopatra. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? denotes the finest filmic hour of Taylor and Burton (together, that is). Their searing chemistry burns up the screen. Violent tempers flare and abusive insults fly across the room. The production period was far from easy. Elizabeth Taylor struggled to cope with Nichols' exacting direction and his frequent use of intrusive close-ups to capture every vindictive jibe and wounded riposte as she and Burton cut deeply into each other's private misery. Indeed, it has been claimed that the filming of this picture placed the couple's marriage under considerable strain, and their relationship never recovered. It's powerful watching the performances of Taylor and Burton while considering the production troubles. Taylor is particularly electrifying; transforming from a joking, carping house-wife to an emotional wreck. Taylor earned an Academy Award for her performance (Burton was additionally nominated), while both of them earned BAFTA awards.

Sandy Dennis also won an Oscar for her compelling performance. The shoot was most troubling for Sandy, who suffered a tragic miscarriage shortly after production wrapped. George Segal (also nominated for an Oscar) and Sandy Dennis as the young couple convey an idealism and naïveté that make them emotionally malleable - ideal victims for the hosts. The film is utterly transfixing for its two-hour duration thanks to these sublime performances.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is an emotionally-straining, gripping and poignant film featuring strong direction, precise editing and beautiful black & white photography. This filmic version is specifically separate from the play due to its symbolic camera angles. The filmmakers have the advantage of emphasising the upper hand in a power struggle by employing low or high angle shots. There are also skewed angles and intriguing hand-held camera movements. These wonderful visuals are accompanied by an eerie sound mix and melancholy music.
The script contains gritty realism in its dialogue. It's ugly, haunting and stirring listening to these peculiar personalities exchanging insults and verbal abuse. This is a brilliant film that has a powerful impact on its audience all these years later. The film was vigorously rehearsed like a play over a gruelling three-week period before the cameras rolled; hence allowing the actors to more easily immerse themselves into the characters.

Overall, Who's Afraid of Virginian Woolf? won't ever be regarded as an entertaining or bright experience. It's firmly positioned in a disturbing reality, permeated with seemingly insane characters and tragic occurrences. It builds to a fine conclusion that's beautifully acted and touching. This is strong stuff and it's intensely watchable...but it ain't for children and it's not a film you'll want to watch again anytime soon. If anything must be criticised, it'd be the use of pure drama. It's also grossly overlong, stretching things into agonising monotony at times.

This was the first film in history to carry the MPAA tag "No one under 18 will be admitted unless accompanied by their parent" during its theatrical run. It was also the first movie to successfully challenge the Production Code Office and eventually force the MPAA to overhaul the Production Code Seal with the eventual classification system in 1968.

"Martha, in my mind you're buried in cement right up to the neck. No, up to the nose, it's much quieter."

7.8/10