Two young girls have the power to travel through time with the use of an old statue. This statue takes them into the future, to when they are beautiful women, and sets them into the middle of New York. But they are far apart and have to find each other. On their quest to find each other again, this huge town seperates them from reality.
Imagine a Jean Rollin film. Throw about 80% of the artistic values into the garbage bin. Change the location from a castle to the middle of New York. Keep the beach. Include one short vampire scene - because that's just how we roll(in). "Lost In New York" is basicly just that - a Rollin film that is made in New York. It was made spontaneously during a trip to New York and that's exactly how the film feels. Random. Maybe not completely without thought behind it, but certainly lacking quality writing to keep you interested for the short time of 52 minutes.
Clearly the plot of two lost girls in New York came to Jean Rollin on a whim since it was easy enough to film that on location without more than actresses nearby. It's filmed at any random spot they found, or at least it seems. The shots of them as kids when they first met, and when they are old ladies trying to get back together again at the end, are both filmed back home in France after the fact. And I'm sure that's when he also came up with the story to tie it all together. Nothing wrong with that I suppose, having him film in New York is certainly different for him. And it put the film into some other unusual situations for being Rollin, such as more experimenting with the camera movements and not being able to throw in as much random nudity (I can assure you that the brief scenes we do get are very random though).
As poetic as ever, "Lost In New York" is still worth watching if you are like me: on the quest to watch all of Jean Rollin's movies. I don't care that I dislike most of them. There's just a nice mix of atmosphere, nudity and art that usually makes them worth while. And "Lost In New York" still fits into his filmography in that sense, and some scenes were great.
This is probably the least horror-y movie that I have seen from him and even though it has a tiny bit of vampirism thrown into it (I have no idea why, to be honest) this is a fantasy / drama in every sense. When Jean Rollin makes something different it still manages to be very close to what he always makes. It's just his ways. And it doesn't matter what year a film of his is made because within is filmography they are all ageless. They all look, act and feel the same. Doesn't matter if they are from the 70's, 90's or whatever.
"Lost In New York" is sometimes a great movie, but those moments are so few and brief that it's hard to call the movie great because of them. I think it's great that a filmmaker like him can just throw something together. The problem is that the time constrains are noticable and they seemingly added some additional stuff just to push the runtime a bit, making it more a feature than a short film. I didn't get into this movie at all and despite it being different, it's still very much the same. Just has less visually striking locations. And too little nudity. I don't find much in the movie with meaning and think the vagueness makes people believe there is much more to it when there really isn't. I'm not slamming other people's interpretations of the movie because maybe they know something I don't. I just can't see it.