Les deux orphelines vampires

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.

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.

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.

No pun intended obviously as always. Jean Rollins - I reckon reading and seeing that name, people acquainted to him and his movies in general (most likely to be fan of his), will have some inkling ... but more an expectation of what to expect here. And then the movie comes and blows away all that - not in the sense you may think (not that kind of movie here).

The movie has one interesting new item/fact or whatever you would call it. I mean you can watch the whole thing under the prism of what is real and what is not ... but if we take this for what we are being shown, than we do get to see Vampires who are "daywalkers" ... but can not see when the sun is out.

So a nice spin on the whole blood sucking thing (individuals). If you are here for nudity and other such things ... well do not bother! It does have some nudity, but not to the degree you may be accustomed to when it comes to Rollins or other directors (and even some of the actors involved - like Brigitte Lahaie, who has a minor role in this).

It has a sort of over arching story .... but it is more about cinematography and getting from one place to another. And some "cameos" along the way. Though sometimes the lighting does not work in any way that would be good ... that aside, the effects are decent to say the least. Not much substance but still at least fragments of the fantasy (world) Rollins likes to delve in ... if you can dig it ... well you need no more ... (nudity/other things) ...

(aka: TWO ORPHAN VAMPIRES)

This DVD has some serious compression problems. Everytime the camera pans to the left or right, the whole screen gets blurry. Plus whenever the characters move, it looks like the speed has been turned down half a notch.

That said, the film itself is a low budget affair (which is a typical feature of Jean Rollin's films) about two female vampires who are blind during the day, but can see at night. They have lived throughout eternity, being killed off occasionally through the ages, only to be resurrected later. By what, this is never explained.

No where near as good as Rollin's THE GRAPES OF DEATH or his later film FASCINATION, but there are worse such as the schlock Jess Franco puts out. The film goes on about 20 minutes too long with a lot of pointless talk about how mankind just doesn't understand them and that they have to kill in order to keep existing in the neverworld that they are condemned to live in.

All this talk just bores the hell out of me. 3 out of 10