Not for everyone. gore and nudity. despicable actions. but also black humors. worth 7+ , much better then many 80s movie. see after the 1st conan movie as the music from same composer.

Just stumbled upon this and was sure glad I did. The female lead is remarkable, loose, sexy, up for anything, willing to love two rival guys in a time of bloodshed. Completely unique, I can't think of any other movie where the young woman is so up for nastiness. Also I have to say the acting is way above par, all the bandits are nicely fleshed out. Great stuff.My criticisms: The lightning scene feels like an act of god, but nobody seems to remark on it. Lighting would most likely hit the highest point of the castle - if it somehow hit the tree inside surely it wouldn't cause the chain to break like that, wouldn't it earth directly? This scene didn't work well, it would have made more sense for the hero to escape through some McGyver-type ingenuity.More obviously - the bubonic plague never killed anyone within hours as it does here. The plague took days to kill people. The plague was however transmitted through blood, eating meat etc (they got that correct)(bacterial disease). The lumps that appeared should have been on the lymph nodes (ie the groin).Why did the disease take a long time with the Jack Thompson character? How come Rutger Hauer never contracted the plague despite swimming in the contaminated water?Wouldn't have taken much to fix up those problems in the script.

I watched this movie because it stars two brilliant actors, Hauer and Leigh, but I only made it a third of the way through before I gave up on the endeavor.I see a lot of people here are saying, sure, it's unpleasant, but that's realistic for the middle ages. But if there's one thing I wouldn't accuse this movie of, it's realism. It's a pretty cheesy blood and guts war tale that isn't that different from ones they were making in the 1950s except it's nastier. As for life being more unpleasant in the middle ages, well, certainly life was hard, there were less creature comforts, people died younger, but still, people are people, and this movie chooses to portray really unpleasant ones, and I suspect if were were able to visit the middle ages we would find that, just like now, there were a mix of pleasant and unpleasant folk.The movie is also rather dull. The script is poorly written, the characters are cardboard.Terrible, terrible movie.

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.