Flesh + Blood (1985)

Dreadfully Boring

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

When l saw this picture for first time in 1988,it's overwhelm myself so realist movie where the director Verhoeven describe fully lecherous behavior of people from the medieval era,actually were hard times to everyone to survive in a lawless land,the powers come from state cities and ruled by the Catholic church mainly....so this piece of art made by Verhoeven careless more adjectives to explain so magnificent movie,of course there are some minor faults like the unbelievable war machine build in the whole night and ready to use in next day and the scene where the boy use a lightning bolt to break the chains....therefore the movie didn't reach the high standard to me!!! Resume: First watch: 1988 / How many: 4 / Source: TV-DVD / Rating: 8.5

This movie is directed by the same man who was responsible for Robocop and Starship Troopers. Paul Verhoeven directed this before coming to Hollywood as his first English movie and is a good indication of what he was to become. Flesh+Blood holds absolutely nothing back when it comes to the medieval customs of rape, murder, and the plague.It stars Rutger Hauer, who is decent, and plays a good enough half villain, half alright guy. Jennifer Jason Leigh kind of wallows with the other B-list actors, but she really does have some parts that shine. It's interesting the things that she goes through in this movie, simply because I can't imagine another actor/actress doing the same. She said while filming her nude scenes in the castle, her feet and hands would turn blue.It's worth seeing if you want a good laugh at the exploitative nature of the medieval times. Try not to take the movie TOO seriously (although at times, that's difficult, mainly some scenes where Leigh's agony is too much to take lightly).

"Flesh and blood" is realistic portrayal of life in middle ages compared to other knight-type movies. It correctly portrays the common folks and noblemen. The only difference is the effects of the plague , but I believe it was done intentionally – from people's points of view in 1501. Don't expect romantic stuff like in other Hollywood movies about that time. Noble king, brave knight , decent citizens , saint princess ? You won't find anything like that in here.That's also the biggest problem with the movie . None of the characters is really likable . Everyone of them is evil one way or another . You could say that they all are anti-heroes . It makes an interesting watch, but it was impossible for me to identify with any of the sides of conflict. The young prince Steven (Tom Burlinson) is probably the closest person to be hero, while Martin (Rutger Hauer) seems to be the villain. Princess Agnes (Jennifer Jason Leigh) isn't a typical love interest , because she is an opportunist . Verhoeven portrays humanity in very negative light . I can agree with him that religion was often used as a tool of propaganda and that kings and aristocrats were rarely as noble as they should be. It doesn't mean that they weren't people who REALLY believed in God and who tried to be decent.The movie is full of violence and shocking images - lovers kissing beneath the hanging corpses is the most symbolic one. It was either done for shock value or maybe the director wants us not to judge people from the past by today standards. By the way – Verhoeven doesn't necessary handle well the action scenes.By the end of movie there is no message really . "Flesh and blood" drowns in a sea of nihilism . The whole movie doesn't really have any resolution. Almost everything in the end is just like in the beginning of the movie. Maybe that's the message from Verhoeven's point of view ? That everyone there (and maybe now) is bastard who cares only about himself? Interesting movie to watch , but doesn't really stays with you since it's empty at heart and doesn't really go anywhere. I give it 6/10.

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.