La morte vivante

I have only seen three Jean Rollin movies (the other two being 'La Vampire Nue' and 'Fascination'). Each made in a different decade, each one a vampire movie of some kind, but each different in approach and theme. All three are fascinating movies, hard to compare with any other horror director's output. While Rollin's work bears certain superficial resemblances to some of Jess Franco's, particularly the emphasis on mood, style and eroticism, each director is his own man. Rollin's movies, though as much exploitation films as Franco's, are not as camp or trashy. I hesitate to call them "art films", but in their own eccentric way they almost are.

'The Living Dead Girl' concerns the resurrection of a French heiress via a spill of "toxic waste". As much a zombie as a vampire, at least initially, she must relentlessly feed on blood to survive. In other director's hands the premise would then go into a familiar direction. Rollin however, takes into stranger territory of loyalty, love and guilt. The movie contains plenty of gore and a reasonably amount of nudity, but overall it will probably not be exactly what you expected. That's what makes it so damn interesting! Watch this without any preconceived ideas about what a vampire movie should or should not be and you will be in for a unique trip! Hats off once again to Jean Rollin for a totally unique experience.

This is an interesting film on several levels. It is not full of top notch acting, but it is different and I like that.

First, some sleaze-bags are dumping chemical waste in an underground burial vault that dates from the 12th century. A tremor releases gases and awakens our living dead girl (Françoise Blanchard). She wanders into the castle above, which happens to have been her home when she died two years ago.

Now, the realtor (Dominique Treillou) brings her boyfriend for a weekend of fun. Surprise! Our living dead girl needs some blood to survive. Now, is she a zombie or a vampire? She doesn't bite, but tears the flesh apart, but she doesn't eat the flesh either; she drinks them dry. Topic for discussion.

What I like about European films is that they have no problems with full frontal. They also use very healthy actresses, not some skinny starlet. Gorgeous bodies are on display in this film.

There isn't much story here. The film has constant flashbacks to the childhood of the zombie and her friend Hélène (Marina Pierro). Hélène comes to the castle after a phone call to see if her friend is alive. At first she doesn't understand, but is soon getting her fresh meat to drink dry.

The living dead girl just wants to die, but Hélène wants to keep her alive. One is never sure if there is more to this relationship than childhood friendship, but there is only one possible ending to it.

Really should be seen by all zombie lovers for a different take on the subject.

Living Dead Girl, The (1982)

*** (out of 4)

French horror film from director Jean Rollin, which mixes tons of sex and nudity with plenty of the red stuff. After some toxic waste falls on her grave, a young woman returns with a hunger for blood. This is probably the best place for a newbie to Rollin to start as this perfectly captures the atmosphere of his best movies but also throws in plenty of over the top gore scenes, which will probably make a casual viewer sick. As with other Rollin films, there's plenty of beautiful women getting naked but the film does move at a snail's pace, which will probably put some to sleep.

OK, a trawl through my past user comments will reveal that I am really interested in this genre of movies for purely purient interest. Having said that, I do know a good film when I see one. While Holywood rarely produces these, neither does Jean Rollin.

I simply cannot understand how some people can give films such as these high marks. Different strokes obviously. To be fair, this is the best produced Rollin film (out of three) that I have seen, but the others were pretty bad, so that is no commendation. Can bad acting, sloppy plotting and woeful gore effects really be that easily ignored?

The story revolves around a girl brought back from the dead who needs blood to sustain herself, her childhood friend's efforts to meet her need, and a French-American's efforts to expose what is going on. The story is threadbare and doesn't go anywhere. Everyone but the vampire girl bleed profusely by the film's end, but to no effect. Little horror, only litres of fake blood and latex gore.

Worst of all, there is little nudity or sex action to compensate. The opportunity of a lesbian relationship (de rigueur I would have thought!) between the vampire and her girlfriend is not realised, and there is only one sex scene. Isn't this the reason thats these films are made?!? I can think of no other. The other Rollin films I have seen (earlier than this one) are worse overall, but manage to compensate by some spirited flesh action.

And have I mentioned the screaming that occurs throughout the film? It's a wonder my neighbours haven't called the police.

So to those who rate this film highly, purporting it to be some kind of arty French tour de force: I have seen films which are the real thing, and it is an insult to competant French directors to make any comparison with Rollin.

I hate to admit it, but I like the idea of Jean Rollin more than the reality of sitting through one of his films. It's not that I don't appreciate what he's doing. I do. He has a unique world view and holds a special place in the world of "fantastique" cinema that is indisputable.

Still, I find his films a little boring.

Case in point THE LIVING DEAD GIRL springs from a simple and fascinating concept of a dead woman, who must drink blood to survive, returning to a château to be with an old friend.

As fascinating as the concept is, Rollin doesn't do a whole lot with it. He serves up plenty of atmosphere, imbues his material with a subtle eroticism and draws a superb performance from the beautiful Francoise Blanchard. What else do you want? you may ask. I'm not sure. I wanted more to happen, I guess. I wanted Rollin to jettison the boring bits and replace them with his signature set pieces.

It's been described as "savage", an adjective I wouldn't use myself. It's also been described as "dreamy". For the most part that's true. My frustration is with the film's uneven tone. Why couldn't it remain "dreamy" right through? You do need patience and a little forgiveness to enjoy Rollin.

I still wouldn't miss anything he's done. He's one of us.