11 thoughts on “Flesh+Blood (1985)

  1. This movie also traumatized me in early adolescence. I’m not even sure how I saw it, given all the rape, for sure it wasn’t something we rented at blockbuster. Interesting to note that the costumes are not entirely BS.

    1. Yes! I just had these snippets of freakish memories of the film from when I watched it the first time around (I had to have been around 12 or 13 at the time, so it must have been at least 4 or 5 years after it came out. It was probably being shown on some cable channel and I caught it randomly while flipping channels). Mainly, the scene where they’re flinging the plague dog’s body parts into the castle, and that totally traumatized me. Now, watching as an adult, it’s still horrifying but in a slightly campier way, if that makes sense. Like, I was watching the entire film and thinking, “LOL seriously? A plague that works within minutes? Making out under rotting corpses? LOLWHUT?”

      There’s a lot of excellent cinema from the 1980s, and this one had all of those pretensions but just failed on pretty much every count. Except for the costumes. Such a weird film.

      1. When I saw this review, I immediately looked it up to see if it was based off a bodice -ripper novel, because that would have made so much sense.

        Sadly, it was not, but I feel like it was meant to be a bodice -ripper in film thing.

  2. Never seen it, never even heard of it. The pix look interesting, and I agree with the BF, at least from the one example, that the armour seems OK. Speaking of armour and codpieces, the brayette, as it’s called, on one of Henry VIII’s jousting harnesses looks like a #2 can. It pays to advertise, OR he needed a lot of padding for protection.

    1. I think you would like it. I certainly did. Interesting “war machines” and all the dirt, blood, and horrors of Renaissance warfare.

  3. I’m 100% going to watch this because I adore Rutger Hauer (and agree that any state of dress or undress he is in is perfectly fine by me), but god I wish he wasn’t in so many terrible movies set vaguely “somewhere in Europe.” Does he have an American accent for no good reason in this one like he did in “Ladyhawke”?

  4. This movie is indeed very rape-y and very gross (thinking about what goes in to the well/cistern thingy!) but I will say one thing in it’s defense…

    When you say “The hair is wacky, the clothes are half-assedly worn, but none of the costumes are egregiously out of period.” thay’s probably intentional since that group of characters is a group of imposters – they’re the mercenaries and the prostitutes who love them who took possession of the castle and the wardrobes of the aristocrats who lived there.

    (The one prostitute with the reddish hair and the crazy CRAY-ZEE eyes still haunts me to this day. )

  5. I’ve avoided Verhoeven (and anything written by Joe Eszterhas) since “Basic Instinct,” although “Showgirls” sounded unintentionally hilarious. Men who are entranced by picturesque scenes of rape and pillage don’t charm me.

  6. I saw the beginning of this on TV when I was about 10. Now, knowing what it is called and what happens in the rest of it, I have no desire to finish it and am glad I tapped out when I did.

  7. The beginning of the film is somehow interesting. But later on it is looking as they were running out of budget with a tiny force of mercenaries defending a castle which is just too big to be properly defended by a handful of soldiers.

    The men’s costumes are looking more 1520s to me and not like 1500s. But I don’t think that Verhoeven ever had problems about it. I loved the locations and Rudger Hauer as a leader of mercenaries in 16th century Italy is a nice role for him.

  8. Loving Rutger Hauer in the white outfit and comments about him clothed or desbhabille.

Comments are closed.