User reviews

Jean Rollin (Caged Vampires, Queen of the Vampires, Zombie Lake) takes a break from the dead and directs an adventure of the living.

Two girls (Gilda Arancio & Joëlle Coeur) travel the countryside enjoying each others company and bodies and company of whomever they manage to hook up with.

They find a small-time mobster hiding in an abandoned house and have a night of fun before moving on. However, they manage to get caught up in some jewel theft and the mobster's bosses have him kidnap them thinking they stole the jewels.

This was just an excuse to begin torture and show some more breasts in this silly yarn that drags on and on until the real thief is uncovered.

This movie recently showed up on the DVD collection "The Grindhouse Experience" (as if I haven't bought enough Jean Rollin's movies on purpose) under the unlikely title of "High School Hitchhikers" because apparently the original English title "Schoolgirl Hitchhikers" sounds too perverse or politically incorrect by today's standards (don't worry though--the lead actresses look mature enough that this could have easily been called "Post-Doctoral Hitchhikers"). Actually though it would probably have been more accurate to use directly translated the French title "Impudent Young Girls"--I don't know if the protagonists are all that "impudent" but at no point are they ever seen hitch-hiking.

The "plot" (people familiar with Jean Rollin's body of work should be rolling around on the floor laughing right now) involves two female drifters who go into a strange château for no apparent reason. After some typical girl-on-girl action they run into some criminals on the lam who. . . well, that's pretty much it. It is similar to a lot of better Rollin's movies like "Requiem for a Vampire" with the gratuitous lesbianism and silly and unconvincing bondage and torture scenes, but it lacks the bizarre surrealism or more "fantastique" elements that mark the director's more interesting work. This is just a knock-off softcore sex flick along the lines of "Bacchanales Sexuales" but with shorter sex scenes (which may or may not be a plus depending on your motives for watching it).

The best thing about this movie is that the two lead actresses are very appealing (at least, if you're not some drooling pervert drawn in by the lurid title). Joelle Couer had a short but memorable career in early 70's French sexploitation film, including Rollin's own (much better) film "The Demoniacs", but she refused to make the leap to hardcore and was supplanted by much less attractive actresses like Claudine Beccaire. The other, more obscure lead looks like a 1970's French version of Mena Suvari. She is wearing a plaid skirt at the beginning of the film (though not for long!), which might partially explain the misleading title. I guess this movie isn't a TOTAL waste of time but just about.

Two young girls travel the country side and spend some time in a secluded and seemingly unoccupied house. When some people show up they get mixed up with some torture and stolen jewels.

Odd film seems to be a porno film with the sex cut out. Reasonably well acted with a good looking cast this is an off beat little "thriller" that isn't really much of anything. its not bad, but it isn't really worth bothering with on its own (I got this part of a 20 film DVD set and as part of that the film was worth trying but had I picked it up on its own I would have been rather upset) 4 out of 10. If you don't spend any money on it

I hunt down horror but I also dig exploitation and grindhouse or drive-in flicks. By doing that you are immediately linked to the French director Jean Rollin. Jean's flicks are best known for two things, they are really bad and secondly they contain a lot of nudity. And this here is no exception. The strange thing about this flick is that Jean directed it under his porn name Michel Gentil. Why he did this with this flick is for me a strange thing because it doesn't contain explicit sex. His best known porn was Phantasmes (Once Upon A Virgin (1975)). Even the Castel twins, which he used a lot, were indulged and even they performed oral sex with one guy.

But Jeunes Filles Impudiques was the first flick were Jean used his pseudonym. It was also the first flick were he worked together with Joelle Coeur, an actress that delivered Jean's best flicks. But this flick, as bad as it was also became a cult hit in the US as Schoolgirl Hitchhikers. It even stated Sex kittens who stop at nothing.

But it is really a typical Rollin's flick. The script doesn't make any sense, but what do make sense is that again, he used a lot of nudity. You are just 10 minutes into the flick before you will have bushy vagina's. But never you will see some explicit scene's or even some pussies. So even as he used his pseudonym it isn't a porn flick.

What it do have is as I said a script were nothing is explained and were we see stupid things like being captured just by sitting in a chair, when the hitchhikers go to another part the victims staid in their seats, not even tied up. Or when the two girls attend to stay at an abandoned house when suddenly a stranger enters one of the girls immediately makes love to him but afterwards he asks, who are you and what are you doing here!

The reel itself is full of scratches and the inserts of close-ups were shot with another color temperature. I may even say that it is so bad that, yes you can guess it, it even becomes good. It is up to now available everywhere as an ode to Jean Rollin who died in 2010 but I guess it will disappear soon as an OOP.

And for the horror fans, yes, they do torture one of the girls with a whip and they do use a pincer to crush some nipples but it's so badly done and don't think that the erotic scene's will give you a warm feeling, the girls exaggerate with every touch of their body, but at the end of the day, it's Jean Rollin, do I need to say more?

Gore 0/5 Nudity 3,5/5 Effects 0/5 Story 1/5 Comedy 0/5

I caught this on the UK free-to-view London Live Channel-I assume it cost them just a few Euros to purchase.

It wasn't till I read the reviews here that I realised that the director is Rollin; they've just finished a season of his vampire flicks so presumably this was in the package.

What a load of crap! Us Brits like to denigrate the 1970s run of awful Brit. Soft core movies that blushingly concentrated more on "comedy" than eroticism. We always rather admired the French for a certain stylishness, and-almost always-their soft core entries during that era were pretty damn erotic even if the acting was only so-so and, of course, the dubbing (in ghastly American) was laughable.

But hey-with this movie-us Brits can hold up our heads again. This is just about the worst French entry in that genre that I've ever seen.

Others here have detailed all the horrors (no pun intended) so all I'll add is that I quite liked the brunette (in all her glory); her blonde pal didn't appeal, but..one man's meat is another's poison!

Avoid, unless you enjoy a masochistic laugh...

Erotic European movies of the 1970s are not particularly known to be masterpieces. But still... This one is really bad! the "script" sucks, the actors and "dialogues" are painful, even the music is horrible The only valid reason to watch this film is the beauty of its actresses, needless to say 100% natural bodies, quite refreshing nowadays! I therefore suggest that you turn off the sound if you watch this crap and skip all the scenes that are not nudity scenes ...

I guess it shouldn't be surprising that French schlock maestro Jean Rollin also made adult movies for a period in his career; it seems like many filmmakers of his ilk did at one point or another. This is so flimsy and kitschy from the very start, in every way, that it would seem to fit right in among such features, an impression that's affirmed by an early sex scene and gratuitous nudity, and more to follow later on. Would I have chosen to watch 'Jeunes filles impudiques,' also known as 'Schoolgirl hitchhikers,' if I knew its real nature? Probably not; to each their own, of course, but I just have no interest in such fare, and there are countless other things I'd have watched instead. Was I in the right mindset to watch anything more involved at the time that I sat to watch this? Also probably not, and perhaps that leads to the best suggestion I have for anyone who stumbles onto this 1973 picture: it's ideal to watch at a time when you want to turn off your brain, because it's simple-minded enough that one will wish to turn off their brain anyway; moreover, it will automatically and subconsciously turn off while watching regardless of one's wishes. Not that I'm well-versed in adult videos but I'm inclined to think that even if one is seeking this out for such titillation, it's so meager that I've a hard time imagining one can walk away satisfied. This definitely falls on the spectrum of like titles that are so cheesy they're pretty much a self-parody, and it's entertaining in the same way that any conglomeration of light and sound is - a baseline distraction from whatever else our day has had in store for us. Take that as you will.

But the thing is, there's not nearly as much sex or nudity here as one would be inclined to believe based on how quickly and casually it's inserted into early scenes. It just sort of "is." I don't think this is "bad" per se; I don't know if it can meaningfully be described in terms of "good" or "bad." What it is, to a certainty, is very low-budget, and low-grade; light, frivolous, unbothered, and lackadaisically paced (as if pacing even matters for something like this). I guess the sets are nice. Joëlle Coeur and Gilda Arancio are lovely, sure; sometimes they and their co-stars even act a little bit. The story is pointedly modest, but it is serviceable, and between Rollin's direction and the writing, this actually offers laughs at a couple points; I think they were intentional, particularly indicated by Pierre Raph's jaunty music, though I'm not sure. One can see how this could have reasonably been shaped into an earnest crime drama or comedy, sans skin flick ideations, had Rollin been so inclined. As it is, 'Jeunes filles impudiques' mostly just kind of languishes in a liminal space that struggles to especially bear fruit on any level. It's not rotten - just very, very thin. It's mild, curious, raises a quizzical eyebrow, and has a hard time passing muster whether one wants sex and nudity, action, comedy, crime, drama, or much of anything at all. Even at that I'm sorry to say that I've seen far worse; this is soft by any standard, but it's nowhere near the bottom of the barrel. It's passably and very passively enjoyable, provided a passing diversion is all that one wants from a film. Only, unless one is a super diehard fan of Rollin or someone else involved, what reason does one have to watch in the first place?

Take it or leave it. Even as the plot rather pointlessly wobbles back and forth, and resolves weakly, you could do worse. For being barely over one hour, 'Jeunes filles impudiques' more or less serves its purpose. Maybe that's all it needs to be.

It had been a bad Monday when I popped this one in to the 'ol DVD player. I just wanted to wind down and be entertained and this film delivered. Grindhouse veteran Jean-Jacques Renon was the cinematographer for this film (credited as Oscar Lapin) and gave the film the only hint of class it has. Honestly, great camera work and lighting here with some gutsy angles.

On to the film. We open with two Eurobabes walking through the French countryside when they come upon a stone wall. For reasons unknown to me, the director (Jean Rollin) decides we must watch every excruciating second of the girls' navigation of this wall but I digress. On the other side of the wall is a French Baroque manor that, in spite of its dilapidated looks outside, is surprisingly tidy inside. After a quick tryst, Joëlle Coeur (the characters names aren't mentioned I think) needs a ciggy and discovers a slimy Euroguy with a pornstache and a gun staying in one of the downstairs rooms. Not put off by either the stache or the gun, Joëlle dances in the sheets and when her friend discovers the two, she joins in! The next morning a "plot" ensues and we find out guys with mustaches and guns aren't always worth a roll in the hay. Somehow, this idiot and two other idiots managed to burgle some jewels, I assume from some more idiotic idiot. Those jewels wind up missing and the thieves assume it was our Eurobabes what done it. After some torture and some more torture we are introduced to a French PI and his Eurogirl (I believe she is actually wearing a cheerleading outfit) assistant. From here on the plot has more lead changes than a girls basketball game with the good guys getting the drop on the bad guys only to lose it again.

The film is mindless trash but an entertaining 70 minutes none the less. If your looking for polished soft-core, go elsewhere, but if you just want to vedge at the end of the day with a cold one, this is a good film to use.

Not that it matters, but the "plot" is about two "schoolgirls/ high school" girls (who look like they're in their early 20s) out hiking in the woods and stumble onto a once lavishly furnished but now seemingly abandoned house and make themselves at home. Their little night of lesbian fun is interrupted by a balding, stick-skinny guy who, after they have a three-way with him, turns out to be involved with jewel smugglers. The two girls are then suspected of taking their loot, and are then (mildly) tortured to get them back. There's also a voice-over narrative, as though the lead girl was recounting the story to the audience at a later time, but, why?

Let's be honest here: nobody is going to watch a movie with a title like "High School Hitchikers/ Schoolgirl Hitchhikers/ Jeunes filles impudiques (Impudic Young Girls)" because of its plot, acting, photography, or elaborate effects. People are going to watch this film to see a bit of nudity, and maybe have a few laughs at the film's expense. On that level, the film works fairly well. The girls are cute and nude often enough, and none of the violence is overpowering, so it never goes off into torture-flick territory. A few laughs can be had with this one, if watched in the right frame of mind.

Two hiking girls, apparently teenagers based on the film's title (though we never see them "hitchhike"), reach a wall in the woods. What mystery lurks on the other side? A mansion, abandoned and waiting for a client? Hmmmm...

Directed by Jean Rollin, who is known for this stuff.

The tone is set from the opening credit cards, which each show two women engaged in some sort of lesbian act... after a dozen or so of those pictures, you might be surprised if the picture was completely clean and family friendly. And do not worry, ten minutes in the girls are undressing each other.

Yes, this film has close-ups on nipple-licking, among other things. It is really only one step about soft-core pornography. Not long after a lesbian scene, a thief named Fred (who looks like a French Tom Savini) shows up and the girls have their way with him.

The plot does develop when the girls are accused of stealing something valuable from Fred and his associates. But by then the film is half over. And it devolves into stripping and torturing...

In the end, what is the point of this film? No idea. My guess is the director and writer conjured up a story that involved girls being naughty and tried to find two girls who would meet their demands. Successfully doing that, they filmed it. It has really no artistic merit whatsoever.

Schoolgirl Hitchhikers (1973)

** (out of 4)

Jean Rollin directs this crime film with a touch of lesbians and sex. Two young girls hitchhiking through the country stop at a house, which they think is empty. Later that night, after some hot lesbian sex, they discover three people are also at the house and they turn out to be thieves missing some stolen jewelry and naturally they think the girls have stolen it. This isn't that bad of a film, although the English dubbing really doesn't do it any justice and the actual budget looks less than a McDonald's value meal. The two female leads are both very attractive so watching them nude half the running time doesn't hurt matters either.

Uncommonly handsome couple Monika (Joëlle Coeur) and Jackie (Gilda Arancio) make for two expressly delectable nubiles who are currently trekking across the no less breathtaking French countryside, exhausted after their long walk, they happily discover a rather grand-looking, somewhat isolated country house, seemingly empty, Monika and Jackie gleefully Goldilocks their way inside soon finding a bed to begin their fulsome frolics! Colourfully, and with pleasing alacrity, director Jean Rollin dispenses with the tawdry business of exposition, zestfully replacing plot with a sublimely sensuous scene of sinfully supple sapphic congress, wherein our two picture perky, perfectly pale-skinned, long wondering waifs slink sensually into one another's slender arms. A little time after their amorously explicit interlude has concluded, the still needful Monika restlessly goes to the porch for a soothing smoke, only to somewhat less than anxiously discover that they are no longer quite alone, since they have inadvertently sheltered in small-time hood Fred's (Willy Braque) secluded hideaway, and after the majestically moustachioed Fred, Monika and Jackie proceed to ménage a trois with laudable energy, Jean Rollin turns up the grindhouse heat with additional lashings of gratuitous gun-play, titillating bouts of torture, exceedingly phat-sounding drum breaks, and the forceful introduction of a tooled-up private dick, 'Schoolgirl Hitchhikers' is a luridly episodic delight, while, perhaps, one of the more, shall we say, roughly hewn gems in maestro Jean Rollin's mercurial, multi-faced genre oeuvre, enjoyed as a B-Movie bit of vintage saucy smut, it's pretty flawless! (And rabid Rollin fans will certainly enjoy the great man's Red-turtle-necked cameo at the very end!)

(1973) Schoolgirl Hitchhikers/ Jeunes filles impudiques (In French with English subtitles) THRILLER

Directed by Jean Rollin of exploitation movies, it has two school girls of Monica (Joëlle Coeur) as she is also kind of a narrator and Jackie (Gilda Arancio) stumbling onto an abandon villa, and decide to take the opportunity by taking one of the bedrooms and do their thing as it appears they are lesbians. But as soon as a hoodlum, named Fred (Willy Braque) who has a scar on his face shows up and resides down below, while they were in the bedroom, Monica decides to come down and seduce him before Jackie comes down to join them. At this point, it reads like a porn movie, but it's not- at least not from the version I saw, anyway, for there is a lot of touchy feely rubbing and kissing. And although, there are some full frontal female shots, that's all it is. And by the time the two high school girls leave the abandoned villa, as Fred sees no threat about them leaving. By the time, Fred's boss, Beatrice (Marie Hélène Règne) shows up and find that the jewels are missing from a locked safe, both Fred and Beatrice along with a third goon suspect that the two school girls may have taken them even though they were residing at a camp.

There's a little twist and subtle revelation toward the end, which this simplistic backdrop was to show case a little T and A, and soft love making. Take my word for it, this is very tame stuff considering what one can see these days.

Jean Rollin, my favourite director, was responsible for many dark fairytale, horror fantasies between 1968 and 2010, all of them very personal and not necessarily commercially successful. To subsidise his work, he also made a range of porn films, often starring cast members from his repertoire company.

Having loved every one of his 'legitimate' projects, it would be narrow-minded not to view his other available offerings - 'The Seduction of Amy' and this. Joëlle Coeur, the memorably perverse Tina from The Demoniacs, plays Monica, and Willie Braque, the moustached actor from a number of Rollin's films, plays underwhelming stud Fred. Ice blond Gilda Stark plays Jackie; the enigmatic Marie Hélène Règne plays Patrice, while pig-tailed Reine Thirion plays the nameless dark horse secretary.

While the many soft-core sex scenes are played with gusto, especially by Coeur, the story is just a means of allowing the cast to disrobe for lengthy periods of time. Let's not worry about that too much.

Titillation is what we're watching of course, but there's no doubt that Rollin's trademark 'look' is often present - his talent for making his well chosen locations look stark and slightly unreal is here. The décor, the skeleton trees; the contrast between drab yet warm interiors and their open fires, to the stark cold of outside is effectively used. The backpacking girls - not really hitchhikers and certainly not schoolgirls - display all of Rollin's engaging mixture of naivety and sensuality (and certainly don't deserve the indignities heaped upon them), and the whole thing, although clearly using very small budget, looks atmospheric and is packed with visual detail.

Without anything vaguely supernatural or 'fantastique' to sustain it, 'Schoolgirl Hitchhikers' is a little dull, with only the performances, which are surprisingly good for this type of caper, and Rollin's signature directorial style, to recommend it. Enjoyable for what it is, and not as exploitative or sleazy as its title would suggest, it would be churlish not to give it less than 6 out of 10.