After two clumsy men accidently spills toxic waste while they're down in a tomb where a mother and her daughter lies, the spill awakens the daughter, Catherine, from the dead. At first she's like an uncontrolled beast craving blood, but as time goes she becomes more and more aware of what she is and what she used to be.
"The Living Dead Girl" is the first and only film I've seen from Jean Rollin so far. It might be hypocrisy that I've seen so few, seeing how known he is, but truth be told, I've stayed away from his films because he makes so many vampire movies, and I'm not exactly the biggest fan of vampires. I finally bought this film 'cause I heard a couple of things about it that I will mention later in the review.
The film has an extremely thin plot line, it's almost pointless. A girl wakes up from the dead, she kills and eats, her friend from when she was alive (whom she had a pact with, that if one dies, the other one follows) takes care of her and helps her feed. That's pretty much all. Aside from that main plot, there is a side plot of an American photographer (actually, actor, but she's learning to be a photographer), who takes a picture of Catherine after seeing her walking on a field all dressed in white. This photographer, Barbara, desperately tries to find the girl she saw, and everyone in town says that he description of the girl sounds alot like Catherine, except that she's dead. Together I guess they make it work, but I would be lying if I said I'm very impressed. But then again, did I buy this film expecting a solid plot and whatnot? No, not really. I bought this film for two reasons. First one being that I heard it was pretty gory, and second one being that sites said it contained "strong erotic scenes" and the genre on the back cover said "erotic / horror". I'm not a porn hound, but if I hear about a film that's supposedly gory, sick or whatever, and it has nudity/sex, I'm atleast checking it out.
I was pleased enough with the gore. I would call it a pretty gory film, but it's not surprisingly gory. I did expect both more gore and better effects, but it was really only the first killings that I felt looked especially bad. When all was said and done, I guess I was one satisfied gore fan.
However, what didn't satisfy me was the supposed "erotic" scenes. I wouldn't say I found any scene to be more erotic than what I see in most other films. Sure, there was a bunch of nudity, but that's not enough for a film to called "erotic". I was expecting and hoping for some sort of visual sex. To be honest, I was mostly hoping for some lesbian stuff, 'cause the plot kinda made that situation possible. But no, nothing like that. The film was good for alot of nudity, but not really for erotica.
So, after a review that seems to be saying alot of shit about the film, I still haven't mentioned the thing that bothered me the most, but sort of in a positive way. People call this a vampire film, but there is no way in hell I would ever do that. It's not a zombie film either though. The title pretty much sums it up better than I can. It's about a living dead girl. Not sure why people call it a vampire film, but I guess it's 'cause Rollin has made some before, and I dunno, maybe he calls it a vampire film too. And if he does, he's wrong. Anywaaaaaay, I have to say that I really enjoyed the film in all it's simplicity. It has gore and nudity, a thin story, and doesn't go on for too long. I think any fan of gore should watch it, as long as you don't listen to how vampiric, erotic or extremely gory it is. Does it make sense that I gave a movie I liked a pretty bad review? I have no idea, but I guess most of the shit was actually aimed for the fans and the people promoting the film as something that it isn't. I'm definitely gonna check more films from Jean Rollin after this, 'cause it was entertainment.