Les deux orphelines vampires

I am not sure. I think it was but at the same time, was it just a style choice>??? I mean its a story about two vampires sisters? I think who want to not be hunted then go on a rampage of hunting and partying together pretty much annd it gets a little incest type closeness. Like, I disagree with them, I feel they could of lived peacfully and found a nice home. A family who understood them enough, maybe leave town I dont exactly know what decade we are in in this. I was recommended watching this on facebook. So its pretty wild movie 'horror'. There was a lot of music and silence and nice scenery so I think this was a stylized movie to 'watch' and kind of admire and not to not be too into it like a marvel movie.

Many Jean Rollins fans didn't like this movie because it didn't have the kinky sex and rampant nudity of his earlier films, but I'm of the opinion that European cult directors like Rollins and Jesus Franco have actually done their best work when they didn't lazily rely on these elements (although with Franco you'd have to go back to late 60's to find evidence of this). Like with most Rollins movies the plot of this one is pretty incidental (something about blind, orphan, twin vampires trapped in a world that doesn't understand them) and the dialogue is downright laughable (if you have a choice watch it in French with English subtitles, or even turn off the English subtitles--it won't matter much). What makes the movie is the music, the atmosphere, and the startling visuals that at times approach the sublime surrealism of Jodorowsky (that's a compliment by the way). The leads are both very good. I was under the impression that this movie was so tame because Rollins had cast children in the lead roles. The actresses instead look to be in their late teens or early twenties (and they do have one brief nude scene). And if you miss the old Rollins standbys, Tina Aumont and Brigitte Lahaie both put in brief but interesting cameos (which is perfect because I never thought Lahaie especially could act her way out of a crisp paper sack). Maybe this isn't as good as many of Rollin's classic 70's films, but it's a lot better than all his recent SOV and hardcore porn efforts.

So many French film makers hide behind the term "surrealism", when what they are making is just garbage. Film is a total art form using motion, sound and text..not just one of the three elements. With Jean Rollins you get nowhere near the full package. What you do get is a very interesting series of photographs, exceptionally lighted, and edited together. Because of the photography-- I will say it is a beautiful film---what makes it even more beautiful, to watch, is the two leading actresses: Alexandra Pic (Louise) and Isabelle Teboul (Henriette). It is obvious that these two actresses are young and inexperienced, they do, nevertheless, a reasonably good job; even if they come across as walking right out of acting class. That is alright, however, since everyone has to start somewhere.

The plot is nothing more than an outline and I have to admit that I would be interested in reading the books to see how well the subject matter is covered. The dialogue is overblown and comes off as being an exercise in amateurism, not surrealism; although the actresses do their best. A plus is that the gore is minimal and looks unrealistic and the director also gets points for the absurdness of some of the "supernatural" characters the two orphan girls come across during the course of the action.

Jean Rollin passed away last year and we will not be seeing another new film by him. I think he had a wonderful eye for finding a hole in the world. By that I would consider him a true surrealist. This particular film, or any of his films for that matter, are not for everyone. He often said he did not make straight horror films, rather fantasy films. He also said he never wanted all the sex, but that is how the distributors wanted to market it. In this film there is one scene where the two embrace naked. The actresses looked uncomfortable which made me feel the same. It is a shame that a film maker has to market something in such a way that changes his vision...but that's show business; I am sure that there are many fifteen year old boys out there that a glad that it is so.

I have a real love-hate relationship with Jean Rollin. If I sit down to watch one of his films I can usually rely on two things; 1, the movie will look great, have an intriguing premise, and feature some stunningly beautiful women. And 2, by the end of it I'll feel hugely let-down and look on the whole thing as a missed opportunity. I know a lot of European directors favour 'style over substance', but Rollin often takes that to a new level. The fact that what's good about his stuff is often SO good is exactly what makes it so annoying; if he missed the mark by a mile it wouldn't matter, but the gorgeous cinematography, composition, lighting, and location work just make the whole thing all the more frustrating.

This movie is a rare exception. Two blind girls (supposedly around the 15-16 yr mark, although the actresses seem to be late teens/early twenties) live at a Catholic orphanage/school. However, at night they can see because they're actually vampires, who after 'lights out' leave the orphanage to hunt. These vampires are more along the lines of Stoker's Dracula; they can move around in daylight, but their vampire abilities only manifest at night when their sight returns and they sprout fangs.

There are several kills (six, by my count), but a fair amount of time is also spent lying around in cemeteries as the girls reminisce about their previous lives (it seems they've been hunted, destroyed, and resurrected several times over 500 years) as well as try to remember who they were before they became vampires. Alexandra Pic (looking like a cross between young Ellen Page and young Jennifer Connelly) and Isabelle Teboul have an ethereal presence as the two girls, and there are cameos by Rollin favourites Tina Aumont and Brigitte Lahaie. It's about 10 minutes too long, and there are still some things that don't make any sense - but that's Rollin. It's slow but very watchable. Some nudity - but for Rollin, not much. 7/10.

Two Orphan Vampires (1997)

** (out of 4)

Later day Rollin film about two sisters who are blind during the day but at night can see blue as they stalk the streets of Paris looking for blood. This is certainly a very big departure for Rollin especially when compared to his more famous, early 70's vampire films. Whereas his earlier films were full of sex, blood and violence, this one here is pretty darn close to PG-rated, although there are a few shots of bloody lips and one brief scene of a woman's breasts. This is a rather strange film to review because on one hand it's not very good but on the other I somewhat respect what Rollin was going for. I think the best thing about the film is the atmosphere Rollin creates with his small budget. As with many Rollin films, this one here moves too slowly, which is the ultimate death key. The film comes close to 105-minutes, which feels twice as long once you get to the half way point. Another problem is that the dialogue is among the worst I've ever heard and I'd swear that a two-year-old wrote it. Alexandra Pic and Isabelle Teboul turn in fairly good performances as the teenage vampires.