Sacred Flesh (2000) Reviews

• Failed Nunsploitation Tribute

  Rapeman132008-12-14

  British imprint Redemption Films have been releasing obscure Eurotrash films since the early 90s. Their early VHS releases of films such as Tombs of the Blind Dead, The Living Dead Girl and Virgin Among the Living Dead were instrumental in triggering my love of cult cinema when I discovered them at my local video store. In 1989 Redemption founder Nigel Wingrove made a short film, Visions of Ecstasy, which was banned outright by the BBFC on grounds of blasphemy. Wingrove fought the BBFC in court - losing his home and many of his possessions in the process due to the hefty lawyer costs - but lost the case. To date, Visions of Ecstasy remains the only film banned in the UK for blasphemous libel. Now it seems Wingrove has decided to stage a "comeback" with another "blasphemous" film, again of the Nunsploitation variety. The basic plot of Sacred Flesh centres around Mother Superior Elizabeth who is possessed by devils. The convent's Abbess is rightfully concerned about her and writes a letter to a local Abbot requesting him to come and check her out and maybe exorcise some demons. That's about all there is plotwise, the rest of the film's brief runtime is taken up with the Mother Superior's nightmarish visions, long monologues on sexual repression within the Catholic church, and the typical lesbo-nun action, flagellation, bondage-crucifixion, etc. Mother Superior Elizabeth is torn by Catholic guilt, between the repression of lust she is taught, and the sexual abandon she craves, her hallucinogenic revelations involve: on the one hand Mary Magdalene condoning sexual freedom and condemning the Catholic church, and on the other the "Death Nun" extolling the virtues of chastity and threatening hellfire & damnation. I imagine in Nigel Wingrove's mind he is probably quite proud of himself for producing yet another artistic, highly controversial piece of blasphemous filth but in reality this chunk of shot-on-video junk is basically low budget soft porn masquerading as highbrow art. Mary's rambling, awkwardly worded anti-Catholic tirades come off as pseudo-intellectual bullshit, that's purely there as an attempt to add some class to this low budget tits 'n' ass show. For a medieval piece set in the early 1900s I find it strange that the nuns sport copious amounts of whorish make-up and silicone, some even flaunt bellybutton & tongue piercings and freshly shaved pussies. I wasn't surprised then to discover that half of the cast are actually British porn stars moonlighting as "actresses". Now, usually I'd really dig this (or any) kinda sleaze especially when there's the added bonus of skanky nuns, but I think what initially put me off here was the fact that Wingrove is trying so hard to emulate the spirit of 70s European exploitation and completely fails (although the horrendous acting and shitty script didn't help much either). Trying to hide your lack of budget behind some flashy editing and lighting then throwing in some didactic bullshit does not a good film make.

• For Nunsploitation fans only

  herolder2001-07-08

  For Nunsploitation fans, this movie is a must. For all others: Don't bother to watch. Basicly it's a sex film with no plot. In her visions a mother superior is discussing with Mary Magdalene about sexual desire and her denial of it. She also tells us the confessions some nuns made to her, which are shown in several sex scenes. Unfortunately the nuns in these scenes have hardly any dialog and are just beautiful bodies without any character behind. The movie is sometimes close to porn, but neither really dark nor disturbing. On the positive side, the sex scenes are well made and the movie has some good visuals (like the opening credits), only the outdoor scenes have the quality of a made for TV film. The sex scenes I give 8/10, the movie itself 5/10.

• Jesus wept.

  joepublic2005-07-02

  What we have here is a film designed to shock. Anyone who goes about making a film about the repressed sexuality of nuns realises and no doubt encourages the fact that some will be shocked by this. In my opinion this film makers tangle with this has left nothing but a laughable piece of amateur soft porn hoping to fool people into thinking it has deep, important themes by topping and tailing the sex scenes with terribly written and awfully acted discussions about the morality of sex and sexual repression. 'The Devils' walked the line between exploitation and art but due to the superb performances and clinical direction managed to avoid desending into voyerism, something this film can not claim. I am sad to see that some people commenting have actually been taken in by the "moral arguments" that run through the film. All I see is a very weak device to allow a group of soft porn scenes to run their course. The rapid editing and camera movement does little to disguise them for what they are either. The acting is terrible. I got the impression that the actors either had no clue what they were saying and therefore lacked any sort realism or were trying their hardest to remember the reams of dogmatic nonsense they spewed - which had much the same affect. One hilarious element are the performers in the scenes of "sexual gratification". Most appear to have breast implants, full make up including lipstick, eye make up and nail varnish, and some even have pierced tongues, belly button rings and tattoos not to mention their incredibly neatly trimmed pubic hair. I'm no expert but I doubt that these things would have been common place in most Convents. This does not add up to a high level of realism and is just another example of the fact the film-maker's intentions were as far from high art or art house as you can get. Avoid this film, if God exists he'll help you resist.

• Complete Pants.

  CharltonBoy2002-10-08

  Now there are some people who watch porn movies who say they like to see a bit of a story and there are some who like to see just action and no story (i fall in the second catagory). In Sacred Flesh we see have a film that fits into neither catagory. This joke of a film does try to show a story but it is so full of religious clap trap that you can't help but reach for the fast forward button to search for the fleshy good bits. Thats were we have the other problem, apart from a couple of flashes of soft porn we see nothing that would get anybody exited .If your thinking of seeing this for the sex ,watch something else because this wont do it for you. The costumes look like they had been made at the local primary school and the acting was so laughable , especially from the men , that it provides the only entertainment. Dont touch this with a barge pole. 1 out of 10.

• Truly Awful

  robjohnellis2000-07-26

  I saw this in London. There were five people in the audience. I think the intent was to make an arty euro porn film, but it looks like it was shot on beta and suffered from dropout and poor colouring. The story goes nowhere, just a tempted mother superior and various nun couplings. I really made the effort to see this one after enjoying the far superior RAZERBLADE SMILE, but Eileen Daly is truly wasted in this mess. Pity.