"Lost in New York" happened by chance when director Rollin had the possibility to visit New York with only 2 actresses coming along. The rather spontaneously shot footage he brought home to France was extended by shots on the pebble beach familiar to all Rollin fans. The film thus completed to a length of almost an hour tells us about two young girls who imagine they might be grown up and see New York, later to meet again with their memories as old women, returning to their days of youth. The circular traveling across space and time is done with a magical device, a round wooden thing called Moon Goddess, also impersonated by a dancer, an actress you may remember from "Emmanuelle 6". What makes "Lost in New York" so fascinating is that it is a very open, personal movie, unlike "The Living Dead Girl" for example which needed to satisfy certain expectations of the particular audience it was aimed at. "Lost in New York" is a dream movie, adding up Rollin's artistic visions more freely than other works of his, so that I would actually count it among his five best films. You can let yourself go in the flow of images which are rarely interrupted by dialogs. In opposite to a movie like "Koyaanisqatsi" though, "Lost in New York" does not hit you with a message. Instead you create a viewpoint for yourself: is it magic or just their imagination, which is present or past, which is reality? Obviously, even my summary above contains a good deal of interpretation already. Certainly not a movie for everybody, but if you like to be challenged a bit, try an interpretation of "Lost in New York" in your own way.

Barefoot and wearing nothing but a raincoat, a woman strides across a deserted rail track. In the sunny streets of France, an elderly woman makes her way through the streets and alleyways. The chalky cliffs next to a rain-lashed beach are seen next. What can it mean? As the credits usher in this 1989 film by French Director Jean Rollin, already interest is piqued.

I'm not sure this is actually a horror film (at 52 minutes and made-for-television, I'm not even sure if it 'officially' a film). It is difficult to define Rollin's work - but I'm going to let the fact that a vampire features briefly here on a New York skyline count it - roughly - as a horror. Also, the image of one or two young women standing by a freezing seafront wearing featureless theatre masks, is one of the best known of Rollin's visuals. It is sinister, fascinating, sombre and strange - just like his pictures, in fact. The masks are everywhere; the woman in raincoat is wearing one, the two lead 'charming young' girls (Marie and Michelle) are wearing them on Rollin's Beach. And then - pop! They are separated and running down the streets of New York, narrowly missing each other, and often accompanied by Phillippe d'Aram's synthesizer music, which is very of its time. This is a travelogue, shot over a few days, ended by scenes of two elderly ladies (aged versions of the two girls in NY) at last finding each other once again.

There isn't a huge amount to get engaged with throughout, but Rollin's talent for poetic imagery on no budget (night-time neon adverts, scenes shot through the haze of steam rising from the street, a red rose on a rain-dulled pavilion) is evident throughout. The film was shot spontaneously, with just Rollin and two actresses in The Big Apple. The overall theme - that of searching for something - is a typical dreamlike scenario. The woman in the raincoat emerges as a moon-goddess, whose naked dance probably influences the climactic, touching reuniting of the two leads.

I very much disliked the whole thing, I can't tell whether this or Iron Rose is worse but they both are very bad movies in my view. Things happen in this movie at least, but it's so mixed up and boring it's hardly a movie at all. I never connected with any of the characters at all. Running at only 52:08 minutes, I have my doubts whether is even supposed to be a "real movie" or Jean thought of it as such. I mean the movie was mainly just random shots in New York with two actors when Jean was on a visit there, it's ridiculous.

Jean Rollin is really a mixed bag. For me he's at his best when he sticks to vampires and castles and artistic/strange symbolism and atmosphere. Those are what he knows, what he's about, what he bring an incredible magic and intrigue to. He's worst when he tries too hard to talk openly in a film about concepts such as "a dream within a dream" and having random things occur for no apparent reason. You can sort of see what he's trying to do at times but for me it just doesn't cut it.