Jean Rollin's films collect praise the way that a splat of dog excrement on the sidewalk collects flies. One *sees* the flies, but one is never quite sure *how* the flies know the crap is there, or exactly what they're so excited about.
Rollin's defenders love to blather on about his "style", his "imagination", his "eye", and his deep understanding of Heidigger's "uncertainty principle". (Well, maybe not the last thing.) But frankly, Rollin is merely a remixer of other, far superior directors. Just one example: someone here mentioned how clever it was that he used "preserved human arms as candle-holders!" News to them: Jean Cocteau came up with that idea, and used it in his "La Belle et la Bête", 25 years earlier. I could cite the original sources of every other bit of "inspiration" in this flick, but why bother?
Neither of the two main chicks are very attractive. I see better looking women every day, and you probably do too. And both are seriously stupid (which probably makes them more attractive to some guys, but I digress). They get in a low-speed car chase with someone (the police?), who for some inexplicable reason are driving a Renault 16, which has never been used as a cop car, not even in an alternate reality. When their motorcycle runs out of gas, they just leave it by the side of the road. When they're hungry, they con a roach-coach guy out of some lettuce (but it never occurs to them to steal his vehicle or his money). They choose to hide in a cemetery, never thinking that it might be spooky in there. I found that I was soon rooting for whoever might be the first to do them in. Alas, I waited and waited and waited...
The director is at least as stupid as his chicks are. How stupid? He terrorizes the chicks with...flying foxes. Yes, the shots of the two being frightened by a pair of bats hanging from a tree, was filmed with flying foxes -- those utterly harmless fruit-eating bats that some people keep as pets. As soon as Rollin has made his point with these poor critters, he then sticks fake vampire bats to the chicks' necks. As in...with adhesive. Not even stock shots of vampire bats lapping blood, not even semi-animated bats flapping menacingly around the girls. Lee Press-On Bats.
Revolvers mysteriously appear and disappear in the chicks' hands as they haplessly try to defend themselves. Each dispenses about 20 bullets, not one of them having even the slightest effect on their pursuers. Note to future film victims: if your pursuer hasn't been affected by the first 5 bullets you pump into them, odds are good that the 6th isn't going to make much difference. You might want to save it for later. Just a thought.
The evil vampires are neither attractive nor menacing; they look more bored than anything else. I know: they're the most dangerous when they're bored. Their fangs look like Lee Press-On Fangs. You know, I'm beginning to wonder if this entire film wasn't an infomercial for the fine family of Lee Press-On products...
There's a truly repellent and utterly gratuitous rape scene that's neither logical nor titillating; it just made me want to wash my eyes out and ask for the 5 minutes it took of my life, back.
Look: I like a trashy film as much as the next guy. I enjoy Jess Franco's "Los Vampyros Lesbos" and some of his other work. I occasionally find Dario Argento's work effective. But "Requiem for a Vampire" is just sad. It lacks any redeeming features (I gave it 2 stars just for the cinematography which is at least colorful), and it does nothing as well as other films in its genre do. I've come to the conclusion that liking C-grade sexploitation films of this era is sort of like a 16 year-old boy going on about how "hot" some porn "actress" with silicone-enhanced 44-D breasts is. He thinks it will make him seem more cool and worldly, but really it just betrays his lack of experience and taste. But hey! --I'm sure that even a tired old whore is glad to have a fan.
Rollin's defenders love to blather on about his "style", his "imagination", his "eye", and his deep understanding of Heidigger's "uncertainty principle". (Well, maybe not the last thing.) But frankly, Rollin is merely a remixer of other, far superior directors. Just one example: someone here mentioned how clever it was that he used "preserved human arms as candle-holders!" News to them: Jean Cocteau came up with that idea, and used it in his "La Belle et la Bête", 25 years earlier. I could cite the original sources of every other bit of "inspiration" in this flick, but why bother?
Neither of the two main chicks are very attractive. I see better looking women every day, and you probably do too. And both are seriously stupid (which probably makes them more attractive to some guys, but I digress). They get in a low-speed car chase with someone (the police?), who for some inexplicable reason are driving a Renault 16, which has never been used as a cop car, not even in an alternate reality. When their motorcycle runs out of gas, they just leave it by the side of the road. When they're hungry, they con a roach-coach guy out of some lettuce (but it never occurs to them to steal his vehicle or his money). They choose to hide in a cemetery, never thinking that it might be spooky in there. I found that I was soon rooting for whoever might be the first to do them in. Alas, I waited and waited and waited...
The director is at least as stupid as his chicks are. How stupid? He terrorizes the chicks with...flying foxes. Yes, the shots of the two being frightened by a pair of bats hanging from a tree, was filmed with flying foxes -- those utterly harmless fruit-eating bats that some people keep as pets. As soon as Rollin has made his point with these poor critters, he then sticks fake vampire bats to the chicks' necks. As in...with adhesive. Not even stock shots of vampire bats lapping blood, not even semi-animated bats flapping menacingly around the girls. Lee Press-On Bats.
Revolvers mysteriously appear and disappear in the chicks' hands as they haplessly try to defend themselves. Each dispenses about 20 bullets, not one of them having even the slightest effect on their pursuers. Note to future film victims: if your pursuer hasn't been affected by the first 5 bullets you pump into them, odds are good that the 6th isn't going to make much difference. You might want to save it for later. Just a thought.
The evil vampires are neither attractive nor menacing; they look more bored than anything else. I know: they're the most dangerous when they're bored. Their fangs look like Lee Press-On Fangs. You know, I'm beginning to wonder if this entire film wasn't an infomercial for the fine family of Lee Press-On products...
There's a truly repellent and utterly gratuitous rape scene that's neither logical nor titillating; it just made me want to wash my eyes out and ask for the 5 minutes it took of my life, back.
Look: I like a trashy film as much as the next guy. I enjoy Jess Franco's "Los Vampyros Lesbos" and some of his other work. I occasionally find Dario Argento's work effective. But "Requiem for a Vampire" is just sad. It lacks any redeeming features (I gave it 2 stars just for the cinematography which is at least colorful), and it does nothing as well as other films in its genre do. I've come to the conclusion that liking C-grade sexploitation films of this era is sort of like a 16 year-old boy going on about how "hot" some porn "actress" with silicone-enhanced 44-D breasts is. He thinks it will make him seem more cool and worldly, but really it just betrays his lack of experience and taste. But hey! --I'm sure that even a tired old whore is glad to have a fan.