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.
17 Reviews
INTERESTING CONCEPT
nogodnomasters24 June 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Two teen girls are blind orphans by day. At night they regain their eye sight for hunting. They are apparently frequently killed and part of the film is flashbacks to previous lives, the first of which was extremely boring with no dialouge, just music. They are adopted by a rich elderly doctor.
The girls wear Catholic girl outfits, frolic in the graveyard, and even partake in dog's blood. In one scene they dare each other to stand naked outside their adopted father's window. They believe they were once ancient Aztec/Inca goddesses. The dialouge is culturally odd in the translation as the girls are described as "so sweet, so pure, just like the sisters of baby Jesus." Another bit was "all gods are real because they are imaginary."
The movie was artsy and not a real horror style vampire film. As an art film, I failed to grasp the message.
Lame sound track. No f-bombs, no sex, some nudity. Neither erotic or scary.
The girls wear Catholic girl outfits, frolic in the graveyard, and even partake in dog's blood. In one scene they dare each other to stand naked outside their adopted father's window. They believe they were once ancient Aztec/Inca goddesses. The dialouge is culturally odd in the translation as the girls are described as "so sweet, so pure, just like the sisters of baby Jesus." Another bit was "all gods are real because they are imaginary."
The movie was artsy and not a real horror style vampire film. As an art film, I failed to grasp the message.
Lame sound track. No f-bombs, no sex, some nudity. Neither erotic or scary.
Beautiful but empty
Beginthebeguine3 June 2012
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.
Much ado about nothing
macabro35725 May 2003
(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
A contender
Aristides-230 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
Can't get any worse than this.
sued19714 September 2005
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.
Two Orphan Vampires
Scarecrow-8827 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
"We are sublime disorder. We're from before their god. They made him say 'Let there be light' to cut our night in half. But, their order is chaos. Our disorder is mad poetry. Our existence awakens and our night is clarity. The two orphan girls roar alone in the night, like flames. And so, no one can touch them. All others are puppets for our game."
Louise & Henriette(Alexandra Pic & Isabelle Teboul)are supposedly blind teenage girls living in a Catholic orphanage. In fact, they are female vampires who must feed from the blood of whatever is available, sneaking out at night to find fresh victims(..like an unfortunate dog roaming a nearby cemetery). Their convent mothers love them, believing these two are angelic lambs, sweet innocents when in fact they are cunning blood-drinkers who relish the taste as it enters their bodies, providing the nourishment they need to survive. They often ponder their identities and where they came from, likening themselves to Aztec goddesses, since they found them in a book within their Mother Superior's library. Once they are adopted by a kind eye-specialist, Dr. Dennary(Bernard Charnacé), Louise and Henriette find freedom to pursue interests in Paris, finding suitable victims to drain at night when their guardian is asleep. An ailment that plagues the girls is daytime blindness, but at night they can see well enough. Night to them is shaded in blue(..which is why Rollin's nighttime scenes are colored blueberry)and they thoroughly enjoy the sights they see. Most of the film displays Louise and Henriette's adventures, finding victims to drain, pondering their past and fates, worrying about potential threats that might lie ahead, and tiring of their predicament regarding the blindness they face and the lack of freedom due to their male guardian who likes to keep them from venturing too far from home.
Not much of a plot which shouldn't be news to the Rollin faithful. This is different in that the female leads aren't lesbian lovers always fondling each other or walking around naked all the time. Their both 17 years old which removes certain aspects Rollin fans are accustomed to. He does shoot in a vast cemetery and we are introduced to a few "creatures of the night" like a She-wolf who recently escaped an asylum resting within a train station, a "midnight lady" cemetery vampire with giant wings, and a vampire who feasts on cadavers who the girls meet along the way. Like in a lot of vampire films, the feeding habits of the teenage vamps eventually catches up to them. Their facade of innocence is shown as quite a tool for the girls to use when they need to feed from potential victims(..like guest-starring Brigitte Lahaie). The dialogue mostly spoken by the girls seems like verse you'd read from a book of melancholic poetry. Rarely are the girls anything other than theatrical in their speech and point-of-view regarding their existence and life in general. The film offers a possibility that these girls are incarnations of others from past lives, returning to live on earth over and over, but it seems that this could merely be created stories from the girls who often let their imaginations run rampant. I think the rub of Rollin's film is just how much the girls enjoy killing and feeding. They do not look like the sort who'd speak so unemotionally about slitting a throat and draining a victim's blood. A riot of a scene has Louise and Henriette pondering just how to kill Dennary. The nuns are often presented as idiots to scorn, but in this film, they're merely naive as to how the girls really are. They cherish the two blind girls, feeling pity for them. Which makes the private scenes between Louise and Henriette so eye-opening and often funny. But, as always, Rollin brings to the screen images that form in his mind..how to frame his girls using their surroundings as a way to paint a unique canvas. This is such the case when they enter the Paris cemetery or when they flee from their orphanage entering a wilderness path, Rollin visualizes how he desires to shoot his characters in the way they come to his mind as he writes the screenplay. The opening montage using postcards, photos & paintings set to such a moody score really sets up the nature of the film and it's characters. Understanding that the film is from the literary work of two books from Rollin makes sense considering how the girls go through a series of vignettes, meeting various characters before returning to the only real home they've ever known only to succumb to their bloodlust banishing them to eternal unrest knowing that the authorities would be after them for biting other innocent orphans. I thought the leads were lovely and handled the unusual dialogue rather well. They were of course a bit theatrical in their presentation but the words they spoke entitled them to be.
Louise & Henriette(Alexandra Pic & Isabelle Teboul)are supposedly blind teenage girls living in a Catholic orphanage. In fact, they are female vampires who must feed from the blood of whatever is available, sneaking out at night to find fresh victims(..like an unfortunate dog roaming a nearby cemetery). Their convent mothers love them, believing these two are angelic lambs, sweet innocents when in fact they are cunning blood-drinkers who relish the taste as it enters their bodies, providing the nourishment they need to survive. They often ponder their identities and where they came from, likening themselves to Aztec goddesses, since they found them in a book within their Mother Superior's library. Once they are adopted by a kind eye-specialist, Dr. Dennary(Bernard Charnacé), Louise and Henriette find freedom to pursue interests in Paris, finding suitable victims to drain at night when their guardian is asleep. An ailment that plagues the girls is daytime blindness, but at night they can see well enough. Night to them is shaded in blue(..which is why Rollin's nighttime scenes are colored blueberry)and they thoroughly enjoy the sights they see. Most of the film displays Louise and Henriette's adventures, finding victims to drain, pondering their past and fates, worrying about potential threats that might lie ahead, and tiring of their predicament regarding the blindness they face and the lack of freedom due to their male guardian who likes to keep them from venturing too far from home.
Not much of a plot which shouldn't be news to the Rollin faithful. This is different in that the female leads aren't lesbian lovers always fondling each other or walking around naked all the time. Their both 17 years old which removes certain aspects Rollin fans are accustomed to. He does shoot in a vast cemetery and we are introduced to a few "creatures of the night" like a She-wolf who recently escaped an asylum resting within a train station, a "midnight lady" cemetery vampire with giant wings, and a vampire who feasts on cadavers who the girls meet along the way. Like in a lot of vampire films, the feeding habits of the teenage vamps eventually catches up to them. Their facade of innocence is shown as quite a tool for the girls to use when they need to feed from potential victims(..like guest-starring Brigitte Lahaie). The dialogue mostly spoken by the girls seems like verse you'd read from a book of melancholic poetry. Rarely are the girls anything other than theatrical in their speech and point-of-view regarding their existence and life in general. The film offers a possibility that these girls are incarnations of others from past lives, returning to live on earth over and over, but it seems that this could merely be created stories from the girls who often let their imaginations run rampant. I think the rub of Rollin's film is just how much the girls enjoy killing and feeding. They do not look like the sort who'd speak so unemotionally about slitting a throat and draining a victim's blood. A riot of a scene has Louise and Henriette pondering just how to kill Dennary. The nuns are often presented as idiots to scorn, but in this film, they're merely naive as to how the girls really are. They cherish the two blind girls, feeling pity for them. Which makes the private scenes between Louise and Henriette so eye-opening and often funny. But, as always, Rollin brings to the screen images that form in his mind..how to frame his girls using their surroundings as a way to paint a unique canvas. This is such the case when they enter the Paris cemetery or when they flee from their orphanage entering a wilderness path, Rollin visualizes how he desires to shoot his characters in the way they come to his mind as he writes the screenplay. The opening montage using postcards, photos & paintings set to such a moody score really sets up the nature of the film and it's characters. Understanding that the film is from the literary work of two books from Rollin makes sense considering how the girls go through a series of vignettes, meeting various characters before returning to the only real home they've ever known only to succumb to their bloodlust banishing them to eternal unrest knowing that the authorities would be after them for biting other innocent orphans. I thought the leads were lovely and handled the unusual dialogue rather well. They were of course a bit theatrical in their presentation but the words they spoke entitled them to be.
Not prime Rollin, but not bad, either.
Hey_Sweden4 October 2020
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.
In the Quiet Night...
Steevh12 August 1999
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
Gorgeous
BandSAboutMovies11 January 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Lousie (Alexandra Pic) and Henriette (Isabelle Teboul) are the two orphan vampires of the title, blind and lost by day, wandering the streets of Paris for blood by night.
Based on his book Les deux orphelines vampires, Jean Rollin is a man of obsessions, coming back time and again to his nighttime world of lost bloodsuckers, a bleak place where tragedy is always close, but yet I find true joy within his films.
I also love that a copy of the Cathal Tohill and Pete Tombs book Immoral Tales: European Sex & Horror Movies 1956-1984 shows up at one point, a book that introduced me to Rollins, Franco and Larraz, a debt that I can probably never repay.
Ghouls, a female bat named Venus (Veronique Dajouti, who permanently injured her back during this scene and never sued Rollin) and werewolves live in this fairy tale and oh yes, Brigitte Lahaie and Tina Aumont.
I could wander these same foggy paths - and assuredly will - with Jean forever.
Based on his book Les deux orphelines vampires, Jean Rollin is a man of obsessions, coming back time and again to his nighttime world of lost bloodsuckers, a bleak place where tragedy is always close, but yet I find true joy within his films.
I also love that a copy of the Cathal Tohill and Pete Tombs book Immoral Tales: European Sex & Horror Movies 1956-1984 shows up at one point, a book that introduced me to Rollins, Franco and Larraz, a debt that I can probably never repay.
Ghouls, a female bat named Venus (Veronique Dajouti, who permanently injured her back during this scene and never sued Rollin) and werewolves live in this fairy tale and oh yes, Brigitte Lahaie and Tina Aumont.
I could wander these same foggy paths - and assuredly will - with Jean forever.
Well, I liked it
lazarillo30 August 2004
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.
The dead dreams of the living.
zombiechan5 August 2019
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.
Two Orphan Vampires
Michael_Elliott13 October 2008
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.
Les deux orphelines vampires
parry_na12 July 2015
Warning: Spoilers
French director Jean Rollin worked on the storyline to for this film whilst undergoing lengthy dialysis treatment. The extra time enforced on the project results in one of his most polished work, in my view. We have Louise and Henriette (Alexandra Pic and Isabelle Taboul), two girls (sisters possibly) who are blind by day and fully sighted vampires by night. The reason seems to be that they are Aztec Gods, or descendants thereof, and as such, can never really die.
Much is made of their night-time activities. Their blue-tinged journeys are either seen as sinister hunts or the mischievous naughtiness of two young scamps. This balance between schoolgirl killer and playful sinner is achieved very well. The actresses exude an other-worldly charm that makes them strangely appealing, despite their misdeeds.
Of course, there is the opportunity to pick out plot holes - why did the girls kill the good Dr Dennery after he provided them with a home, and whom they had just convinced of their good intentions? And why did the passer-by in the cemetery, after noticing they were not really blind, assume them to be demons from hell and threaten to beat them with a stick? – but why bother? It would, as always, be like trying to dissect a dream, a place where the usual rules either don't exist, or simply don't matter.
Much is made of their night-time activities. Their blue-tinged journeys are either seen as sinister hunts or the mischievous naughtiness of two young scamps. This balance between schoolgirl killer and playful sinner is achieved very well. The actresses exude an other-worldly charm that makes them strangely appealing, despite their misdeeds.
Of course, there is the opportunity to pick out plot holes - why did the girls kill the good Dr Dennery after he provided them with a home, and whom they had just convinced of their good intentions? And why did the passer-by in the cemetery, after noticing they were not really blind, assume them to be demons from hell and threaten to beat them with a stick? – but why bother? It would, as always, be like trying to dissect a dream, a place where the usual rules either don't exist, or simply don't matter.
"The dead dream about the living, not the reverse..."
hauntshow66612 August 2022
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.
Rollin Up.
morrison-dylan-fan14 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
After watching the excellent Occupation 1943 French Horror Le loup des Malveneur (also reviewed),I got in the mood to see a "new" Horror from France's leading auteur of the genre: Jean Rollin. Reading in a number of places this being credited as his "return" work, I got set to meet Rollin's orphans.
View on the film:
Returning to Horror for the first time since the outstanding The Living Dead Girl (1982), writer/directing auteur Jean Rollin proves he has lost none of the magic in hauntingly stilted wide shots against real crumbling churches,with Rollin closely working with cinematographer Norbert Marfaing-Sintes to give the white gown-wearing orphans a ghostly floating appearance.
Continuing with the visual theme from Dead Girl of modern items/setting being fitted into a classical Gothic tale, Rollin uses in a highly stylish fashion a circus ring and modern books to capture the passage of time Louise and Henriette have lived, all in a richly atmospheric blue light which brings light to the orphans vision, and a macabre mood across the screen.
Adapting his own novel, Rollin brings a clarity from taking on his own, earlier creation. Allowing the orphans to only gain their sights when away from the Catholic orphanage, Rollin displays an impressive subtle quality in the deconstruction of blind faith/beliefs.
Making the duo rebellious vampire teenagers, Rollin sharply contrasts the free-spirited "fun" they have killing,smoking and being able to see, round the side streets outside, with the façade of the belief that the Catholic orphanage staff hold that the two are blind from evil.
Continuing to build on a major theme in Living Dead Girl, Rollin has the orphans feel completely isolated from everyone else in the world, with the duo revealing in poetic, fairy tale dialogue their inability to clearly remember their past lives.
Joined by the welcomed sight of the in a dream state Tina Aumont and Brigitte Lahaie,Alexandra Pic and Isabelle Teboul give outstanding debut performances as Henriette and Louise, whose blood-stained smiles are balanced by a delicate, sisterly bond Pic and Teboul give the two orphan vampires.
View on the film:
Returning to Horror for the first time since the outstanding The Living Dead Girl (1982), writer/directing auteur Jean Rollin proves he has lost none of the magic in hauntingly stilted wide shots against real crumbling churches,with Rollin closely working with cinematographer Norbert Marfaing-Sintes to give the white gown-wearing orphans a ghostly floating appearance.
Continuing with the visual theme from Dead Girl of modern items/setting being fitted into a classical Gothic tale, Rollin uses in a highly stylish fashion a circus ring and modern books to capture the passage of time Louise and Henriette have lived, all in a richly atmospheric blue light which brings light to the orphans vision, and a macabre mood across the screen.
Adapting his own novel, Rollin brings a clarity from taking on his own, earlier creation. Allowing the orphans to only gain their sights when away from the Catholic orphanage, Rollin displays an impressive subtle quality in the deconstruction of blind faith/beliefs.
Making the duo rebellious vampire teenagers, Rollin sharply contrasts the free-spirited "fun" they have killing,smoking and being able to see, round the side streets outside, with the façade of the belief that the Catholic orphanage staff hold that the two are blind from evil.
Continuing to build on a major theme in Living Dead Girl, Rollin has the orphans feel completely isolated from everyone else in the world, with the duo revealing in poetic, fairy tale dialogue their inability to clearly remember their past lives.
Joined by the welcomed sight of the in a dream state Tina Aumont and Brigitte Lahaie,Alexandra Pic and Isabelle Teboul give outstanding debut performances as Henriette and Louise, whose blood-stained smiles are balanced by a delicate, sisterly bond Pic and Teboul give the two orphan vampires.
"At Night, We See Blue!"...
azathothpwiggins18 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
A doctor adopts two orphan girls named Henriette and Louise (Isabelle Teboul and Alexandra Pic), both of whom have gone simultaneously, inexplicably blind. Then, the very night of their adoption, the two regain their sight, but can only see in blue.
This is a Jean Rollin film, so, Henriette and Louise are quite out of the ordinary. They enjoy waltzing through the graveyard in their white nightgowns. They also recall their past lives and their many deaths. They reminisce about their victims and the blood they've shared. Then, they feast on the blood of the cemetery dog.
The doctor is oblivious to the girls' nocturnal wanderings. They carry on like demonic sprites, playfully stalking their prey. When pursued by enraged humans, the girls take refuge in the sanctuary, where they are helped by a mysterious woman known as the Midnight Lady.
Things get even weirder and more dangerous for the Doctor.
Rollin is never boring. His movies are always different and interesting. So, if you're looking for a traditional vampire film, forget it. While the story is easy enough to follow, it's anything but ordinary...
This is a Jean Rollin film, so, Henriette and Louise are quite out of the ordinary. They enjoy waltzing through the graveyard in their white nightgowns. They also recall their past lives and their many deaths. They reminisce about their victims and the blood they've shared. Then, they feast on the blood of the cemetery dog.
The doctor is oblivious to the girls' nocturnal wanderings. They carry on like demonic sprites, playfully stalking their prey. When pursued by enraged humans, the girls take refuge in the sanctuary, where they are helped by a mysterious woman known as the Midnight Lady.
Things get even weirder and more dangerous for the Doctor.
Rollin is never boring. His movies are always different and interesting. So, if you're looking for a traditional vampire film, forget it. While the story is easy enough to follow, it's anything but ordinary...
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
