18 reviews
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) ...
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) ...
- nogodnomasters
- Jun 23, 2019
- Permalink
It starts well enough with the lovely orphan girls and their white sticks and their apparent blindness. Alexandra Pic and Isabelle Teboul are great throughout but the film is rather long and some of it seems to be repeated again. I understand that Jean Rollin was unwell at the time and, of course, this is a rather late of his films.
- christopher-underwood
- Mar 18, 2022
- Permalink
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.
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.
- Beginthebeguine
- Jun 2, 2012
- Permalink
(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
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
- macabro357
- May 24, 2003
- Permalink
- Aristides-2
- Dec 29, 2007
- Permalink
Big shock: I'm a woman & I'm a Rollin fan.
Now we're over that 'shocker', let me tell you that this film is one of the worst wastes of celluloid I've ever seen....and I've seen a lot of them. Yes, Rollin certainly did have a low budget and it shows...boy does it show.
Rollin should have retired years before this abomination. Where is the master of French Vampire films, the one who made 'Shiver of the Vampires', 'Requiem for a Vampire' and 'Fascination'??? One cannot make a work of 'art' out of a sow's ear: this film was, it seems to me, distributed and is feted purely in terms of the Rollin name & reputation. AVOID at all costs.
Now we're over that 'shocker', let me tell you that this film is one of the worst wastes of celluloid I've ever seen....and I've seen a lot of them. Yes, Rollin certainly did have a low budget and it shows...boy does it show.
Rollin should have retired years before this abomination. Where is the master of French Vampire films, the one who made 'Shiver of the Vampires', 'Requiem for a Vampire' and 'Fascination'??? One cannot make a work of 'art' out of a sow's ear: this film was, it seems to me, distributed and is feted purely in terms of the Rollin name & reputation. AVOID at all costs.
- Scarecrow-88
- Sep 26, 2008
- Permalink
French cult filmmaker Jean Rollin again explores some familiar themes in this effort from his latter days. The two title characters are girls played by Alexandra Pic and Isabelle Teboul. People think that they are blind, and they cannot in fact see during the daytime, but they see everything in shades of blue during the night. They bemoan the fact that they are doomed to an endless cycle of new "lives" and imminent "death", while putting the bite on various unlucky French citizens. Although a kindly eye doctor (Bernard Charnace) adopts them, they don't want to let a change of scenery keep them from their usual habits.
Adapted by Rollin from a series of novels he had written, this understandably comes as a disappointment to fans of his highly erotic (and superior) 1970s output. This is more tame due to the ages of his two leads, and yet it still does have some sex appeal, and much of the atmosphere that is inherent in his work. It's haunting, with a lovely score by Philippe D'Aram, and has a fairly amusing script wherein the girls equate themselves with Aztec goddesses (since they see themselves as not being truly immortal). The supporting cast is good, including such performers as Natalie Perrey (also the script supervisor) as Sister Martha, Gudule as the Mother Superior, Nada Le Hoangan as the sickly Virginia, and the stunning Veronique Djaouti as the "She-Wolf". In quick cameos we see Rollin favourite Brigitte Lahaie and the great Tina Aumont as a "ghoul".
Pic and Teboul do a good job of maintaining some viewer interest, even as the film goes on quite a long time and meanders a bit. Even as they're willing to do evil things, their childish playfulness prevents them from being completely disagreeable. And their devotion to each other holds firm, all the way to the conclusion that is as haunting as the majority of the film.
Overall, "Two Orphan Vampires" is a good, if not great, Rollin film.
Seven out of 10.
Adapted by Rollin from a series of novels he had written, this understandably comes as a disappointment to fans of his highly erotic (and superior) 1970s output. This is more tame due to the ages of his two leads, and yet it still does have some sex appeal, and much of the atmosphere that is inherent in his work. It's haunting, with a lovely score by Philippe D'Aram, and has a fairly amusing script wherein the girls equate themselves with Aztec goddesses (since they see themselves as not being truly immortal). The supporting cast is good, including such performers as Natalie Perrey (also the script supervisor) as Sister Martha, Gudule as the Mother Superior, Nada Le Hoangan as the sickly Virginia, and the stunning Veronique Djaouti as the "She-Wolf". In quick cameos we see Rollin favourite Brigitte Lahaie and the great Tina Aumont as a "ghoul".
Pic and Teboul do a good job of maintaining some viewer interest, even as the film goes on quite a long time and meanders a bit. Even as they're willing to do evil things, their childish playfulness prevents them from being completely disagreeable. And their devotion to each other holds firm, all the way to the conclusion that is as haunting as the majority of the film.
Overall, "Two Orphan Vampires" is a good, if not great, Rollin film.
Seven out of 10.
- Hey_Sweden
- Oct 3, 2020
- Permalink
Now *this* is the film that separates the men from the boys. If it's in-yer-face sex and horror you want; then I suggest you bugger off now, because Jean Rollin has concocted something very very different... And are you man enough to take it?
Rollin's filmic obsession with vampires- and let's face it, with erotic young women- has never looked this beautiful. Like many films to come out of Europe, this eschews huge action and movement in favour of stillness and thought. It's beautiful to look at, and within the frame Rollin has trapped a whole other world- a vivid, colourful world of rich tones and contrasts, waif-like vampires and deep brown earth. Like some kind of comfortable dream on a hot Summer's evening, 'Two Orphan Vampires' slides from plot point to plot point at its own leisure. At times there's not a lot going on; but there's always something to look at.
Perhaps the most astonishing thing about the film, is the way in which Rollin makes the tiny budget work to his advantage. We meet a vampire queen, a ghoul and a werewolf. But we are only *told* this is what they are- they appear outwardly 'normal'... and although it's a cliche to say 'our imaginations do the rest', here it is so true. Late in the film there is a scene in which one of the characters explains some of her past; stuff that Hollywood would salivate over. Rollin has her hunched over a table and s-l-o-w-l-y tracks the camera towards her. No fuss, no noise, no elaborately staged flash-backs and set-pieces. Stillness. Quiet. And an otherworldliness that will leave you changed. It's like looking at a painting that illustrates a poem you strongly admire, and finding the artist has got it just 'right'. 'Two Orphan Vampires' is a tribute to the enduring presence of Jean Rollin- a writer/director of integrity, vision and wit.
Steev
Rollin's filmic obsession with vampires- and let's face it, with erotic young women- has never looked this beautiful. Like many films to come out of Europe, this eschews huge action and movement in favour of stillness and thought. It's beautiful to look at, and within the frame Rollin has trapped a whole other world- a vivid, colourful world of rich tones and contrasts, waif-like vampires and deep brown earth. Like some kind of comfortable dream on a hot Summer's evening, 'Two Orphan Vampires' slides from plot point to plot point at its own leisure. At times there's not a lot going on; but there's always something to look at.
Perhaps the most astonishing thing about the film, is the way in which Rollin makes the tiny budget work to his advantage. We meet a vampire queen, a ghoul and a werewolf. But we are only *told* this is what they are- they appear outwardly 'normal'... and although it's a cliche to say 'our imaginations do the rest', here it is so true. Late in the film there is a scene in which one of the characters explains some of her past; stuff that Hollywood would salivate over. Rollin has her hunched over a table and s-l-o-w-l-y tracks the camera towards her. No fuss, no noise, no elaborately staged flash-backs and set-pieces. Stillness. Quiet. And an otherworldliness that will leave you changed. It's like looking at a painting that illustrates a poem you strongly admire, and finding the artist has got it just 'right'. 'Two Orphan Vampires' is a tribute to the enduring presence of Jean Rollin- a writer/director of integrity, vision and wit.
Steev
- BandSAboutMovies
- Jan 10, 2023
- Permalink
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.
A dreamy dark fairy tale about two lesbian orphans who are blind. Also they are vampire and can see in blue vision at night.
I haven't seen many Jean Rollins films, but I enjoyed this one much more than Demonaniacs. It was dark, but sweet. It was dream like with poetic dialog. The relationship between the two orphans was wholesome and Ioving. They weren't strong, they questioned who they are, and they enjoy some brandy to go with their blood. The movie was a great watch and I now feel the need to watch more of Rollins films.
I haven't seen many Jean Rollins films, but I enjoyed this one much more than Demonaniacs. It was dark, but sweet. It was dream like with poetic dialog. The relationship between the two orphans was wholesome and Ioving. They weren't strong, they questioned who they are, and they enjoy some brandy to go with their blood. The movie was a great watch and I now feel the need to watch more of Rollins films.
- zombiechan
- Aug 4, 2019
- Permalink
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.
** (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.
- Michael_Elliott
- Oct 12, 2008
- Permalink
I adore Two Orphan Vampires, I find it such a raw, honest and endearing piece of filmmaking.
So far out, kooky, beautifully strange, devastating- it's just so sad they're these poor blind little orphan vampires not fit for this world! I can't even.
So far out, kooky, beautifully strange, devastating- it's just so sad they're these poor blind little orphan vampires not fit for this world! I can't even.
- hauntshow666
- Aug 11, 2022
- Permalink
- morrison-dylan-fan
- Oct 13, 2018
- Permalink
- azathothpwiggins
- Oct 17, 2021
- Permalink