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.

macabro357 (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