Watch Blood and Roses For Free

Undescribable Perfection

the audience applauded

Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Let's be realistic.

Interesting story, but needed more work. Good cinematography, acting and music. Very Atmospheric I saw this in French with English subtitles. So the I'm sure the story was lost during translation or I missed some things. The best part of the movie is the atmosphere. It has good acting and music. Cinematography was good. Best scene was when Millarca was stalking the victim girl. The ending was a bit of a mess, with the black and white, operating table. That needed more work.My initial rating was 6 stars, because the story needed more work. I still believe that. While watching the movie my thoughts were that Carmilla was not supernaturally possessed by Millarca but was psychologically possessed, thinking in her own mind that she was possessed. This is a much more interesting story.Rating is a B-/B, it needed more work. 7 stars.

In a way this movie is in the vein of an earlier film 'Dracula's Daughter (1936)' with what maybe the first hint at vampire's lesbianism and bi-sexuality captured on film. But the story of 'Blood and Roses' is loosely based on the novella Carmilla (1872).It's about a woman, Carmilla, that has revealed her family's past concerning vampirism. There is a costume party with large fireworks in the family's cemetery which opens up the vampire into a new world that is different from the old world she is used to. The spirit of the vampire over takes Carmilla or has Camilla been overtaken by the stories of her family's past? Interesting film, it's not as good as I was anticipating but it's certainly not a bad watch. It starts out great, hits a lull about midway then picks back up for an interesting ending.7.5/10

An adaptation of Sheridan le Fanu's "Carmilla", which was most famously adapted as Vampyr by Carl Dreyer. It's been a few years since I last saw Vampyr, but I don't recognize much of the story in this one, except for maybe a little bit of vampire lesbianism. This film is gorgeous, however. Vadim is famous for marrying hot women and then making movies with them. This one stars his least famous wife, Annette Vadim, to whom he was married between Bardot and Jane Fonda for about two years between 1959 and 1960. She's beautiful, every bit as beautiful as Brigitte Bardot. She stars as Carmilla, a woman secretly in love with her cousin (Mel Ferrer, Audrey Hepburn's husband at the time), who is about to be married to Elsa Martinelli. After visiting the grave of a vampire woman, Carmilla becomes a bloodsucker who sets her eyes on her rival. This is super sexy. Unfortunately Netflix only has the English language version, which is about fifteen minutes shorter and cropped, but I still quite loved it. Highly recommended.

Young Carmilla (Annette Vadim) is jealous of her friend's engagement, and her obsession leads her to the tomb of a female vampire.Critical reviews of this film seem overall negative. Mike Mayo says the "story makes less than complete sense", calls Vadim a "Bardot wannabe" who is "not nearly as frightening as" intended. He calls the performances as a whole "anemic". I think this is overly harsh. The story made sense to me, and Vadim has no control over who she resembles (I think she comes across as both talented an beautiful). Was the film supposed to be frightening? The acting is not terribly strong, but I have seen much worse.Ivan Butler is also not a fan, but seems more sympathetic. He calls the film "somewhat pretentious" and criticizes the dubbing. He does say that the movie has "some effective and beautiful moments", though. I did not find the dubbing that intrusive, though I am in general agreement that subtitles would be better (but it seems like not everyone was speaking the same language).Which film is better, this one or Dreyer's "Vampyr"? Both are based off the same story, but tell it in their own way, so it is hard to compare. While the Dreyer version is a true classic and should be the better film by default, I do not think this version can be written off completely. It is unique, more accessible and shares some style aspects with the Hammer films, which may appeal to people who are not interested in old German cinema.Who makes a better male lead, Mel Ferrer or Christopher Lee? The story is that Lee was supposed to be Leopold but he turned it down and it went to Ferrer (a friend of his). While Lee would have gotten the film more star power (and added to the Hammer style), I think Ferrer does a fine job (no "anemic" acting here) and should not be ruled out. He might not have the name recognition of Lee or Cushing or Price, but Ferrer is a fantastic horror actor just the same.