Michael_Elliott Blood and Roses (1960) ** (out of 4)Bram Stoker's Dracula will always be the best known vampire tale but Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu's "Carmilla" had a pretty big run of films in the 60s and 70s. In this film, Carmilla (Annette Vadim) gets jealous for the love of her cousin (Mel Ferrer) and soon she visits the tomb of a former relative who just happened to be a vampire. Before long Carmilla is transformed and goes after what she wants. I know director Roger Vadim has a strong following out there but I've always been left rather cold by his horror films. I guess horror films would be too insulting because this film (as well as SPIRITS OF THE DEAD) are more art-house than anything else. To be fair, I viewed the American version of this film, which runs around 13-minutes shorter than the French version and it's also dubbed. With that said, I'm really not sure the added scenes would have helped this movie as it appears they were mainly a prologue and epilogue. I'm really not sure what Vadim was going for here except that he wanted to bring some sort of beauty to the story. He does manage to do this with a couple good scenes including one dealing with a dying rose but outside of this I thought he sucked the film dry of any energy. Even at just 74-minutes the film seems to drag in spots and there's not an ounce of energy to be had anywhere. The performances are good for the most part but these here aren't enough to save the picture. Those who enjoy the French art pictures from this era might enjoy this but others should check out THE VAMPIRE LOVERS for a much better telling of the story.

matheusmarchetti In a world where films such as "Twilight" are considered great vampire flicks, a little unknown gem like "Blood and Roses" comes as a extremely pleasant surprise as it is one of those films that you expect nothing from and turn out to be real cinematic works of art. Unfairly underrated director Roger Vadim creates a dark, tragic love story, filled with beautiful landscapes, terrifying Gothic atmosphere, surrealistic feel, a lovely soundtrack and a suspenseful build up to a shocking and heartbreaking finale. Vadim adapts Sheridan La Fanu's "Carmilla" with a modern twist, whilst keeping the poetry and the eroticism that so many other, more "faithful" adaptations lack. Making "Carmilla" a much more human character was a clever choice and makes you feel sympathy for her character, so therefore you actually feel bad for both the victims and the killer, which is something that usually lacks in horror films, at least in such an intelligent way. Annette Vadim helps bringing the character to life, and is here in one of her best performances. Mel Ferrer and Elsa Martinelli have a wonderful chemistry together and are perfect choices for the supporting roles. Another of the film's highlights is the cinematography, that unfortunately doesn't show it's full Technicolor glory in the film's bad VHS print. Hopefully, one day Paramount will release this masterpiece in DVD or Blu-Ray with it's gorgeous visuals as Vadim intended. 10/10 - a masterpiece. One of the best vampire movies ever made.

ddx-5 I was a teenager, that movie was rated +16 and I was 14. I don't remember why I wanted so much to watch this movie, maybe the poster's picture, Annette Vadim and Elsa Martinelli kissing :). I borrowed the ID card of an older friend of mine, then I'd been allowed to go in.That day, I've seen that movie 2 times, and I came back the day after and I stayed 2 more times watching it, fascinated. Not for the plot, the plot is cheesy. Not for some nudity, there's none. The beauty of Annette Vadim, oh yes! The magnificent cinematography? Even if I didn't know what "cinematography" was, I still remember the fascination I sensed for the colors and the lighting. And I still remember also the score of Jean Prodromidès (an underrated genius, his opera "The Persians" is a masterpiece!) It was almost 50 years ago, thanks to Annette, Claude Renoir, Jean Prodromidès, Vadim, I was become a movie-goer. By the way, I've never seen that movie again from that time. I'm afraid to be disappointed.

Maciste_Brother BLOOD AND ROSES, or ET MOURIR DE PLAISIR (to die of pleasure), is a spotty Eurocult horror film directed by Roger Vadim that works better as an experimental film than an actual movie that's supposed to entertain. I enjoyed watching this movie for the amazing atmosphere, some of the great visuals and the truly beautiful score. It's truly unique in this case. I also enjoyed the narration, which from what I've heard is not included in the original French version. Personally, I cannot imagine this film without narration. There would be extremely long moments with nothing going on.But BLOOD AND ROSES falls flat when it plays like a movie, with characters too sketchy for anyone to care about or moments which now look positively dated, like the drive through the country with the two men and the two little girls. That scene stands out for all the wrong reasons. Or the discussion in the kitchen, with the maid and all. Those moments are dated and clash with the modern, almost ahead of its times dream or horror sequences. On one hand, BLOOD AND ROSES feels hopelessly outdated and yet on the other hand it feels very contemporary, with the dream sequence being the highlight. I can't imagine what people thought of this scene when they saw it back in 1960.If you watch BLOOD AND ROSES for the Goth moments and the music, you won't be disappointed but if you expect some sort of Hammer style horror film, with lotsa action, this film won't be your cup of tea. I give it 7 stars for the atmosphere and music.