Flesh + Blood (1985)

I wanted to but couldn't!

Absolutely the worst movie.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

When a fortified city is taken from its rightful ruler while he is away he hires mercenaries to help retake it. I promises that they can have twenty four hours to loot as the please but once they are victorious he betrays them; ordering them to disarm and leave any treasure they have found. Soon afterwards the departing mercenaries discover a statue of St Martin and take it as a sign that their leader, also called Martin will make them rich. Not long after this they meet the man who betrayed them and make off with wagons loaded with valuables... and Agnes, the young woman promised to his son Steven. The mercenaries rape her but soon it becomes clear that Martin wants her for himself; especially after she helps him seize a castle which the mercenaries use as their new home. Of course things are far from over and they will have to contend with attacks from opposing forces and an outbreak of the plague!If you have seen other films from director Paul Verhoeven you will have an idea of what to expect; violence, sex and nudity. While this means it won't appeal to everybody it didn't feel overly gratuitous. The film captures the filth and unpleasantness of the era in a way that might feel familiar to people watching things like 'Game of Thrones' now but would have been unusual at a time when things were far more sanitised. Our protagonists are more morally ambiguous than one expect; Martin is far from heroic as he forces himself onto Agnes and later she shows a cunning side as she appears to fall in love with him but doesn't forget Steven... one feels she will do what it takes to survive in the least unpleasant way possible. Rutger Hauer impresses as Martin and Jennifer Jason Leigh does a solid job as Agnes. The supporting cast are pretty good too. The action scenes are suitably gritty with many characters getting killed in ways that aren't swift and painless. One or two of these deaths are also quite inventive thanks to Steven's scientific approach to warfare. Overall one for fans of the genre who don't like things overly sanitised.

In this tale told by Paul Verhoeven and written by Gerard Soeteman, we follow a group of medieval mercenaries who get double-crossed by their commanding officer, which leads them down a path of revenge, crime and bloodshed. Essentially it's a Robin Hood story, or an underdog tale, but with no punches pulled and with a taste for the gore and splatter. Verhoeven is most known for his dark scifi action films, like Total Recall and RoboCop, but this film is very much his creation when it comes to the style.And I have to admit that I like it a lot. Verhoeven's signature style is all over the screen with this one and it just might be one of the most brutal medieval adventure films I've ever seen. No one comes out of this film unscathed and it's such a jaded film that it's even hard to pick sides. The mercenaries are justified in their lust for revenge, but they also end up kidnapping the bride of the son of their betrayer and abusing her in very dark ways. On the other hand the bride is not a saint either, and very much not a damsel in distress, being willing to do whatever it takes to survive. Whereas the son of the betrayer, the groom as it may be, is perhaps the most virtuous of the whole cast, but even he has his dark tendencies.And it's just a great adventure film in its own right. The setting is great, the characters are all shades of awesome, the action scenes are just the right amount of over the top and the whole film has this unmistakable style of the 80s. Blood and gore, smoke and shadows.Very much worth a watch for all fans of dark and one of my favourite Verhoeven movies.

This is just what cinema needed in 1985. Flesh And Blood is certainly different and thankfully so. For me, the movie's a guilty pleasure that I like, especially seeing as Rutger Hauer's one of more favorite actors (charming devil). It has a great cast, who deliver wonderful performances, plus two Australian imports, one who's future became pretty bleak afterwards, where I really wouldn't say his performance here, was impressive. Set back in 1506, Western Europe if I'm correct, in medieval time, a bunch of thieves led by Hauer, lower class sorts, have had the dirty done on em' where they're forced to hand over their loot by the very noble men, who pay em' for their takings. So begins a tale of revenge by these thieves, where a young girl, Agnes (the versatile Jennifer Jason Leigh) has been promised as a wife for a young inventor, Steven (Burlinson) is snatched where she must play revenge driven Hauer to survive (that spa scene in the castle, I'll never forget) Of course being a Verhoeven film, this tale seems to be one to show sleaze and shock, and it does with some moments, some nudity bits I highly approve of. Remember it's Verhoeven, where he's brought a masterful cinematic experience to the screen which is richly rewarding, and entertainingly captivating. It has a great turning point where the thieving peasants, contract the plague, thanks to a dead dog, that ended up in a well, prior to them drinking water from it. The film is periodically shot with excellence, as to the sets whatever, we really feel we're there in medieval times. It's great when these period films or are pumped up with sex and violence, and sleaze, where I can't fault director Paul here, as being a big fan of his. The last frame is memorable with a wandering, vanquished, and undead Hauer. Well done Paul, well done.

Shock-value? No, this movie was all shock and no value. It was a degenerate effort. Certain scenes are truly disturbing (in a bad way). By mid-way through you'll feel dirty. Skip it – You'll be the better for not having seen this. And don't let any child see it anymore than you'd show them snuff-pornography (which in a sense this is) – how this escaped an NC17-rating is beyond me.This deserves repeating: "Flesh+Blood is an unpleasant movie – deliberately so, I think. The point seems to be the sordidness of it all. [...] The point is less clever than it first seems – it only really exists in the wake of a long tradition of Romantic ideals. This movie is a reaction to artistic clichés of various sorts, in other words, but it could only really exist in the wake of these same clichés: it doesn't have a life of its own, it doesn't make much sense apart from the sentiments it mocks. Movies like FLESH + BLOOD are a lot thinner than they first look: they're the rough equivalent of doing HAMLET naked. Once you get past the shock value, there's not a lot here." {originally written by dj_bassett from Philadelphia}.The avant-garde aiming to shock and undermine bourgeois ideals. Is that "art"? This movie deserves to be seen about as much as the "piss-christ" deserves to be flocked to in museums worldwide. If you're a great fan of the latter, by all means see the former, it'll be in your taste. Otherwise, stay away.