Two Orphan Vampires (1997)

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.

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.

This movie is a contender for being one of the worst films I've ever seen. Only the fact that the performances of some of the actors are not that bad keeps it from that most dubious of descriptions.Why is it bad? Let me count the ways: Parts of the script could be easily suited for a radio/tape/disc presentation. Talk, talk, talk and in these sections, no motion, motion, motion. Much of the direction makes me have a fantasy that a real nun, cloistered to the point of idiocy, 'directed' many of the sub-amateurish performances.A staple in vampire stories, going back to Mr. Stoker, is that daylight is a killer to a vampire. They exist at night. In this movie, multiple times (too many to count), we literally see daylight and yet see the vampires functioning. Couldn't this have been easily been handled when the film was being timed?What's with the two scenes being shot in NYC? Since the doctor moved the vampires to Paris from the countryside, where they were seen by a rural man and his wife in a large cemetery, how could the man, back in the countryside, happen upon them again? That scene in the urban cemetery; the country guy is looking at them in one direction, and when set upon by the young murder victim's boyfriend, turns around and pointing in a different direction says something like, "look what they're doing to your girlfriend!"Much of the dialog between the vampires, while meant to be 'simple' comes out simpleminded: the Manson girls and their mental diarrhea. One of the vampires is shot in the back with a shotgun but when her back is seen, no sign of an entry wound.What, by the way, did the young farm girl have happen to her in a few minutes time, that made her want to help and shield the two murderers?And on and on and on.

(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