La Fiancée de Dracula

Out of all the movies involving the character of Dracula, this has got to be one of the most uninteresting ones I have ever come across.

I'm somewhat familiar with the director Jean Rollin and his other movies and it seems to me that this movie is very different from most of his other work. The movies I had seen by him were all very straightforward horror flicks, involving blood and gore and a revenge from the death type of plot. Not this movie though.

Seems to me that this movie was more trying to be a drama, rather than a horror. This is not necessarily a bad thing of course but it is when the story is just so incredibly odd and uninteresting and offers you absolutely nothing thought provoking or entertaining.

It's still something that could had worked. I mean, just look at any random Werner Herzog horror/thriller. I think this movie was also going for a same sort of approach with its style and approach but it just never worked out, at least not for me. The movie is lacking in style. Basically it is a very cheap looking one with nothing in it that impresses. Same goes for all of the characters and the story really.

Don't even ask what the story was all supposed to be about, since it was all such a big mess. The main plot is not that hard to follow and it's very simply written but it are all of the plot lines and characters surrounding its main plot that makes this movie such a confusing mess and also a totally uninteresting one to follow. Parallel worlds, a circus dwarf, killer nuns. Did this movie really thought it was being clever, by simply throwing in as much non-sense stuff as possible? It certainly seemed to me that way but I really wasn't fooled by all of it. I could see through this movie so easily and could see it for what it truly was; A poorly made mess of a movie, that tries to make sense and be clever by being as silly as possible. Now, that just doesn't make any sense to me.

You can't even really regard this as a Dracula movie, or a horror in general. It takes a totally different approach, that unfortunately just isn't much good.

4/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

The fifth Rollin film I've watched naturally features a good deal of nudity and gore: it's bizarre and incoherent, to put it mildly, but undeniably fascinating for all that - even if, unfortunately, the TV reception got messed up during the first few minutes of the film!

Coincidentally, it emerges as yet another "Nunsploitation" film (which followed my first-time viewing of SATANICO PANDEMONIUM [1973]!; see review above) - apart from being an esoteric vampire (and zombie) flick!! We also have here an interesting depiction of the effect which the chosen (but unbalanced!) vampire bride-to-be leaves on the order of nuns who harbor her. These, then, have been given silly names pertaining to their idiosyncracies, like Sister Pipe and Sister Cigar (given their smoking preferences) or Sister Funnel (which is what one of them unaccountably keeps on her head)!; likewise, there's a (cave-dwelling) ogress and a (horse-riding!) she-wolf on hand - but these carry no make-up whatsoever, save for the latter's talons!!

As for the Dracula figure (who uses an old grandfather clock as a teleporting device!), however, he's as under-developed here as he had been in Jess Franco's comparable (and almost identically-titled) LA FILLE DE Dracula (1972)! The film's climax - featuring Rollin's beloved seaside setting - is totally wacky, with mad nuns attacking Dracula's horde of disciples (including a couple of old crones and a love-struck dwarf-jester!) and the ogress (a veritable female zombie but a sexy one!) feasting on a naked vampire, before the latter is eventually fried by the oncoming sunlight!!

While the flat digital shooting manages, for the most part, not to obliterate the typically dream-like mood created for the film, its cast includes a comeback to Rollin territory for Brigitte Lahaie as the she-wolf I mentioned above (by the way, I should be watching her first horror film for him - THE GRAPES OF DEATH [1978] - soon) and Bunuel regular Bernard Musson(!). Rollin's latest offering is the only one I've watched from him of recent vintage; while not exactly a good film, it's certainly unique for these times - and, frankly, I'm more interested than ever now to watch a contemporaneous Franco effort (if anything for comparison's sake)...

After a long fallow period exacerbated by health problems, it looked as if Jean Rollin would never get back on track. The sublime surrealism of his early masterworks was increasingly being overshadowed by long periods of inactivity and the occasional disappointing dud. Even the highly-touted TWO ORPHAN VAMPIRES seemed like a far cry from his glory days. Well, it may be impossible to bring back the early '70's, but I suspect that FIANCEE OF DRACULA is the best Rollin film we are likely to get from the second half of his career. It certainly makes me wish he'd crank out a few more. Whereas TWO ORPHAN VAMPIRES struck me as a somewhat tired parade of setpieces, FIANCEE actually feels like a fully-realized story where the characters interact and drive the narrative. The music is much better than the synthesizer droning that's been contaminating Rollin's later pictures, with the composer actually using several different instruments. In fact, the one thing that struck me about this film is that for the first time in ages there is a Rollin movie that doesn't seem hamstrung by budgetary constraints from start to finish. Instead there is great imagery, an interesting story and a refreshing lack of predictability.

...Or, a Jean Rollin film, in other words.

Certainly, this is his best film in years. Despite the sort of technical inadequacies that have always dogged his low-budget work, I have never been able to resist Rollin. Indeed, larger budgets have often hampered him, in that his unique style largely depends on a sense of post-apocalyptic dereliction and a wistful sensuality shot amidst empty castles and isolated necropoli.

If I remember right, Rollin had the largest budget available to him so far, yet does not make the mistakes he made with Deamoniacs (the first film where he had any real money) and fill the run time with lots of pointless but boring "action" sequences. Instead, the extra wad of cash allows him to expand his universe but at the same time revisit many of the locations of the past. And yes, before you ask, that beach IS in it.

As always, Rollin's unique sense of humour is present, though in a far more sophisticated manner than in his previous works(it helps if you see the original French versions). A sequence in a nunnery, for example is underscored by various paintings by Clouvis Trouille seen in the background. Long a huge influence, or rather "brother" in the same fraternity as Rollin, Trouille's work has been referenced more and more in his films as of late. Thank God, none of the campery of Frisson De Vampires here.

Most importantly, Rollin references and recreates images seen in earlier films. The Grandfather clock/TARDIS arrangement; the beach; various castle seen in other works. I could go on. The point is, Rollin has not only taken his time to retrofit is films into one great whole but to also hint that there is one continuous Master Story Arc throughout his entire oeuvre.

If you are new to Rollin, see The Nude Vampire, Rape of the Vampire and Fascination first. If you are a long-term fan you will not be disappointed and, indeed you will await his next film (which, despite all the secrecy, has, in fact finished shooting already) with eager anticipation...

Fiancée of Dracula (2002)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

A professor and his assistant are trying to track down Dracula but aren't having any luck so instead they locate his fiancée and have her released from a nun-ran mental hospital. Once the fiancée is out, various circus freaks help her locate Dracula and of course the Van Helsing-wannabe is along for the tracking. After years of ill-health and not tackling any movies, director Jean Rollin tried a comeback with TWO ORPHAN VAMPIRES and this film, which followed five years later. Sadly, neither film returned the director to his glory days of the 1970s but I guess fans can at least be thankful that he did get to crank out a few more movies. This film here, plot wise, is an incoherent mess that never really adds up to much of anything. At 90-minutes the film is way too long because it's hard to get any type of feeling for the actual story since the thing is all over the place. I'm not sure if Rollin just wanted to throw everything on the picture and hope that something would stick but sadly the end result is rather lame and not much works. The biggest problem is that none of the characters are all that interesting and this is especially true of the three most important ones. The professor just comes off as a fool and it's hard to take anything he's doing very seriously. The fiancée is very poorly written and whatever motivations she has just roll off. Then there's the Dracula character who has to be one of the weakest versions from any film. Not only do we get vampires but there's also a semi-zombie and a wolf-woman. This wolf is one of the film's saving graces since she's played by the cult favorite Brigitte Lahaie, an actress who appeared in several of Rollin's earlier films. She's the only real energy in the film as she gets to have fun playing the bad girl and she even gets to make a return in a lesbian sequence. You certainly can't take away from the fact that she looks incredibly good at this stage in her life. As you'd expect, there's some gore and nudity but even this is rather tame and boring. There's just really no reason for one to be involved with anything going on since Rollin can add any energy to what we're watching. Fiancée OF Dracula is only for those Rollin fans who must watch everything he did.