Four sisters are living in a big mansion, in a village where they are hated by everyone. The sisters think that they are 200 year old vampires, and now it's up to a group of three to convince them that they aren't.
As I write this review, I've watched the film one and a half time, trying to understand it, and trying to follow it's plot. Since I let hype and expectations control most of my "The Living Dead Girl" review, I was expecting this Jean Rollin film to get a better review. 'Cause even though the review of the other flick sounded bad up until the end, I actually did like it. Now it was time to go back to Jean Rollin's roots and watch his debut film.
The film is about four sisters who think that they are 200 year old vampires. A couple of, what I assume is psychiatrists, try to change their minds. This is of course only the first "act" of the film. The second continues the story, so it's not like it's an anthology such as "Creepshow" or anything, but for some reason it seems like the acts was an important part of the film, atleast for the makers of it. Personally it could've just been one act. Anyway, the next act doesn't really pick up. It starts out on the beach, continuing the last scene of the first act. A whole bunch of people in weird robes arrive, and I suppose they are vampires too. They lead a man, who actually was set out to convince those four sisters that they were vampires by talking through a scarecrow-ish thing on a field (while just standing behind it), to the queen of the vampires (a kind of ugly woman who has short hair and her tits out), because he did a terrible job. Basicly this act is more about the queen and less about the sisters. Maybe it was a bad day for me, but I can't say I understood much of the plot, even though it sounds fairly simple when you read about it. They manage to confuse us in most ways possible, and I was pulling my hair trying to follow it. It doesn't seem like I'm the only person who thinks this, so the fact that I felt highly unconcentrated through the whole thing shouldn't matter that much. I can even say that by the 50 minute mark, I found myself thinking about what I should eat tomorrow. Most people seem to still consider this a masterpiece and a very beautiful, atmospheric film, even with the flaws in mind. I could not.
The gore was too fake to be good, and I was actually happy that there wasn't that much of it. Calling it gore is actually not right, since it's mostly just blood, and the blood looks like if they just dipped their hand, or head, or whatever it is that is bleeding, in paint.
I should try to squeeze in some positive stuff in this review, because it does have it's pro's. What are they? Well.. mostly beautiful girls. Beautiful naked girls is by far the best thing here. The majority was very pretty. It's also a better vampire film than stuff like "Queen Of The Damned". That's not saying alot, but I would still rather see people watching this than that crapfest.
"Rape Of The Vampire" might not be a bad debut for Jean Rollin, it does show some sort of talent and filmmaking skills, but it's not a great one. I have only seen one of his other films, "The Living Dead Girl", and it was superior in most ways. Only check this out if you're a major vampire junkie, a fan of Jean Rollin overall, or just wants to see something with boobies in it. I hope that the next film of his that I watch will be like "The Living Dead Girl" rather than like this confusing piece of... something. It's too hard to follow and not interesting enough for me to enjoy the "beauty" that people are talking about.