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.
0 out of 0 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
