Stephan Hammond
It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,
Myron Clemons
A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.
Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin
The movie really just wants to entertain people.
Michael_Elliott
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.
Aristides-2
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.
sued1971
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.
lazarillo
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.
