Reviews written by

6 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

8 out of 33 people found the following review useful:
Are there 2 Jean Rollins? This can't be the same guy....., 15 July 2003

Unfortunately, my first exposure to Jean Rollin was "Bacchanales Sexuelles". I say unfortunately, because none of his other non-porn films have matched up to that softcore skinfest masterpiece. From that, I went to his first 3 vampire movies. Not bad, but I can see the evolution of flesh exposure in each of them, which naturally would lead to the carnal pandemonium of Bacchanales. Obviously I wasn't looking for plots--I'm a collector of Eurosleaze, you see. So, at this point I've got the 4 movies listed above in my possession, then I see "Two Orphan Vampires" in the local mall. Unbelievable, I think to myself. Up until then I'd only been able to get them on the web. So I buy it, using my own personal brand of warped logic which told me that, since this film was made in 1996 or so, and sexual taboos have really been relaxed since the 70s, this film must be an orgy of lust. WRONG! It would appear that Rollin has almost completely backed off from showing skin at this point. The leading "actresses" have only one brief nude scene each, and no sex scenes. This cannot possibly be Jean Rollin! This film also revealed to me exactly what Rollin's detractors have been saying all this time: This film is simply BAD! Lack of flesh notwithstanding, it is 103 minutes of a couple amateur actresses whining about being killed and reborn over and over again....AAARRGH!! The special effects "blood" appears to be circa 1968 Hammer Horror brand. Rollin had better blood effects in his 1970 vampire films! This is just terrible stuff. I used to defend Rollin's films, but now I get the picture. We bought them for the erotica content, but there is nothing in this film even remotely erotic. NOTHING! And I can't believe it...

24 out of 30 people found the following review useful:
Oh, come on now......, 13 July 2003

Let's be real here. This film is meant to serve only one purpose, and it serves that purpose excellently. And, no, I don't mean it is meant to tell a story. Some films are created just to be guilty pleasures, and this one does a great job of providing a carnal vacation from intellectual cinema. It's funny that other reviewers seem to expect it to be something that it clearly--blatantly--is not. If you consider it in the proper context, that of a being flesh-fest and nothing more, it is top notch. Beats out most American erotic films, at any rate. Beautiful women ready and willing to bare it all at the slightest suggestion is a nice diversion once in a while. Of course it isn't Schindler's List, and it never was meant to be. Just calm yourselves down and let loose. At the very least it isn't as tedious as a real porno, though the sexual content sure straddles that fence on a few occasions.

Annoying, 19 April 2003

I've known too many stupid girls like this one, and it p***es me off just watching it. Overall, not the most exciting movie: older man gets obsessed with apathetic teenaged girl. Wow, so original. Even though it's in French I can tell the girl is a bad actress. She delivers her lines in a completely deadpan manner, with no emotion. Alright, all you self-styled "critics" out there will say "But it's because she's in character and doesn't want to be emotional with the guy". Whatever. She was just boring to watch, especially compared to the frenetic behavior of her outrageously-obsessed lover. The film also delivers less nudity than it would seem to promise, which doesn't help matters. The girl is pure European in body: a bit of extra poundage and quite hirsute in the southern hemisphere. Being American, that takes away many points.

Rocky III (1982)
47 out of 65 people found the following review useful:
Be nice, it ain't that bad....., 19 March 2003

Clearly the most entertaining of the Rocky films due to its perfect pacing and well-choreographed matches. Stallone is at his best when playing Rocky--it is his vision and his creation--and, despite what Hollywood wants us to think, he is not a bad director either.

What he masters are "subtleties" (my term): certain facial expressions or small actions/reactions at perhaps less-than-pivotal moments which reveal his skill. They need to be really looked for to be seen, which is why only those who without the ability to look deeper than the surface find him so mediocre.

I don't want to give them all away, but here's one example of a subtlety that shows just how human he can make his characters (especially Rocky): in this film, in the break between the end of Round 2 and the beginning of Round 3, he is sitting in his corner getting a mouthful from Apollo. An assistant starts to spray something in his face (probably something to coagulate the blood, I don't know), but Rocky, who is focused intently on Apollo's furious coaching, opens his mouth as if he is expecting water to be sprayed in. He suddenly flinches in disgust as the spray goes in his mouth and stings his face. It's just a tiny tiny humorous moment that speaks loudly about attention to detail.

Or how about in Rocky 2, at the beginning of the match when they meet in the center of the ring and Apollo starts making his bravado-laden threats, we see Rocky just sort of nod and half-smile at him politely, then next you see a side-on shot of him turning to walk back to his corner, and the look on his face says "What a prick." Priceless.

I'm not a fan of boxing, or the first Rocky movie (too slow), or the last Rocky movie (huh?), but this one is extremely enjoyable for me to watch as a human being who faces challenges just like anyone else, and who needs that occasional inspiration to give me a dose of determination to overcome them.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Hardcore actress goes softcore, 6 October 2002

The beautiful, delicious Zara Whites--of porn fame--stars in this film reminiscent of Emmanuelle films, and other European softcore. The plot is similar to The Story of O, wherein the girl gets taken to a mansion run by a sadist and becomes a love slave. All I can say is that Zara is gorgeous, hot, and sexy. There's a little more to it than that, but any serious critics are not needed here. This is a skinfest for Zara (and others), and as such it is fantastic.

What's the problem?, 28 September 2002

Only those modern sensitive-type guys would say they don't like this film (even though in secret they do). I think the film is all about female empowerment, from the looks of it. It's about a certain subject and cannot avoid the stigma which it inevitably brings. But I see no difference between this movie and, say, The Accused with Jodie Foster. This movie is the better of the two when you realize that true justice gets done in the end, and not in some courtroom where useless lives regularly get spared. So guys, don't say you don't like this film just to impress the ladies. I'm a guy and I think it's great. Nothing wrong with a little revenge now and then. Think of it as Death Wish meets Accused. Besides, no guy will turn down a film with the amount of nudity this one has....