Sacred Flesh (2000) User Reviews

Jesus wept.

[joepublic · 2/10 · 2 July 2005]

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.

Truly Awful

[robjohnellis · 2/10 · 26 July 2000]

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.

Subpar trash - and proudly that

[SororInversa · 3/10 · 30 December 2012]

Nigel Wingrove's less than spectacular try on the nunsploitation genre is quite ridiculous a film indeed, on every level. A Mother Superior is suffering from an extreme form of horniness-induced delirium brought about by her reading the carnal confessions of her fellow sisters, who invariably are silicone pumped sex fiends prone to succumbing to the callings of their young flesh. She descends into a hallucinatory limbo where Mary Magdalene herself encourages her to stop the mortification of her flesh and instead save her sanity by giving in to her innate sexual frenzy. Whipping, masturbation, lesbianism and group sex follow, as they should.

This film sucks, but in a good way. Acting is terrible, costumes laughable and the soft-core sex scenes tame, poorly performed and devoid of any illusion of feeling whatsoever. I've always imagined the real sex life of nuns to be much dirtier, perverse and more demented.

That's not to say the time spent on this flick was wasted. In a right state of mind, with the right company, watching this piece of garbage can be an exquisite pleasure.

Recommended for true connoisseurs of the poopier side of cinema.

Failed Nunsploitation Tribute

[Rapeman13 · 14 December 2008]

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.

Complete Pants.

[CharltonBoy · 1/10 · 8 October 2002]

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.

Absolutely worthless porno rubbish.

[poolandrews · 1/10 · 17 July 2007]

Sacred Flesh concerns the order of the Nuns of the Sacred Heart where the Mother Superior (Sally Tremaine) is having visions & conversation's with Mary Magdalene (Kristina Bill) a talking skeleton called Catechism (Rachel Taggart) & a gal named Repression (Eileen Daly), most of these conversation's & visions involve sex. The Reverend Mother calls in Father Henry (Simon Hill) to, well I don't know actually. The Mother Superior carries on having more visions & conversations involving sex & that's it basically.

This English production was written (Ha! On the back of a postage stamp!) & directed by Nigel Wingrove & is total pure complete & utter crap from start to finish, you know there are some films which are rubbish but try & I feel sort of bad writing a negative comment for them but then there are films like Sacred Flesh which I take personal pride & great satisfaction in trashing like the piece of garbage that it is! As you may already have gathered I don't like Sacred Flesh at all, it has no story, it's probably the most boring 75 minute film I've ever seen & it fails on just about every level. I suppose it's trying to say something relevant about the Church & it's attitudes towards sex but it's so badly written & thought out that the themes & ideas it raises go absolutely nowhere. The character's are awful, the dialogue is awful & the sex scenes are awful. A lot of the running time is devoted to Nuns groping themselves & each other, there isn't any actual sex scenes between a man & woman in the film & it's as soft as you can get, there are naked bodies aplenty but no real action at all, damned this film is crap!

Director Wingrove was obviously working on a low budget so he tries to give the film a stylish look which fails completely, this is meant to be a period piece as people are still travelling around the country on horseback & that period look coupled with the flashy editing & lighting just makes the whole thing look a complete total & utter mess. God damned this film is crap. Again it's worth mentioning that Sacred Flesh is as soft a porn film as you can imagine, I don't understand why anyone would want to watch this rubbish instead of a proper hardcore porno that would be cheaper & easier to find as well as a lot more satisfying. You'll have a hard time jerking off to this crap unless semi naked Nuns do it for you.

Technically the film is basic, the period setting looks cheap as does the whole rubbishy thing. The acting is terrible & the girls aren't even that good looking either.

Sacred Flesh is terrible & It's been my pleasure to say as much. Just hire a proper porno out, get some tissues & have fun which is very unlikely if you decide to watch this. This is awful & it's as simple & straight forward as that.

A very interesting film.

[Jonno-B · 9/10 · 6 March 2005]

This film is something of an enigma. While it is easy to dismiss it as merely a thinly veiled porn film, when you actually look at the themes and meanings behind the film, it becomes more interesting. While the sex scenes are possibly overstated slightly, and could have been fewer or shorter, they are padded with some pretty heave dialogue between the mother superior and Mary Magdalene debating the logic behind unchecked celibacy. The film's basic message is that sexual repression will only lead to an eventual release, which could be more violent and harmful than ever. The quality of the acting varies, the nuns are a possibly a bit too well groomed, but the art direction is sumptuous. The film is a joy to watch, as the sets, costumes and effects are beautiful. I recommend you watch this film. It is amazing. My only complaint is that the fabulous Eileen Daly wasn't given more of a role.

Is the female the harbinger of the Devil?

[lastliberal · 6/10 · 9 July 2008]

One has to have some justification for watching a film like this. Surely, we cannot be just voyeurs, are we? This is probably the ultimate in nunsploitation films. I am certainly not through investigation, but I cannot imagine something more perverse than this one.

So, we have to follow along with the writer/director who apparently wanted to justify the sumptuous feast of nun flesh in this film by having not one, but two or three philosophical discussions going on about mean and women, nuns, and satisfying your carnal desires. Bugger! Just fast forward through all that and get to the action.

And, what action you will see in this film. It stretched the line between soft and hard core porn so far that I actually felt it may bust through if there was one more scene. Full frontal nudity was the norm, and those none were certainly passionate about satisfying each other - or themselves if no one was about to help. A nunnery full of bodacious babes and all there for us to enjoy. Even the priests got in on the act somewhat as they wanted to make sure that a particular nun knew what she was sacrificing.

Whew! I am just overwhelmed at what goes on behind those walls.

For Nunsploitation fans only

[herolder · 8 July 2001]

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.

Very Much Worth Watching

[daniel_damaged · 9/10 · 4 January 2001]

I recommend this film to anyone who has in some way been effected Christian repression. It does a good job of putting across a question to the viewer - "What exactly is it these extreme Christians have against sex anyway?"

Even though the acting and the costumes are from from outstanding. The script is pretty impressive, the erotic scenes are very well shot, the music is great and it just has an overall creepy dark look about it all.

But my main problem with it was - The very talented, lovely Emily Booth should of been given a bigger role.

i'd give the film a 7/10

A Revealing Soft Porn into the Turmoil of the Flesh

[tabuno · 8/10 · 18 January 2019]

10 June 2011. An intriguing softporn movie that incorporates both lofty sounding contemporary English in a Shakespearean cadence, with a collaqe of sex scenes of varying quality, and ultimately the possibility of religious sacrifice. On a number of levels this movie could be considered an exploitation movie, manipulating its audience under the guise of substantive, righteous in order to pander to sexual, titillating pornography. At the same time, there is the intriguing manifestation of a real physical and spiritual battle that might in fact be reflective of the moral and sensual battles that actual rage in the minds and bodies of many people. In an elevated dimensional, eschewing an outright demonic and satanic actuality in the movie, the suggestive nature maintains a separation between reality and fantasy, between the supernatural and the psychological not often depicted in most movies. In the end, this movie is what the eye beholds and the viewer takes away from it and it contains the ingredients of any number of interpretations.

Well-crafted, but pretentious

[lor_ · 17 June 2019]

Porn in Britain has an unusual history, often presented in bowdlerized versions (like horror releases, given to local censorship), and this distributor Redemption/Salvation Films released many a mainstream U.S. porn video of the '90s with all the explicit sex removed.

Here we have a sex film about nuns, made to capitalize on that genre and the ongoing popularity of Ken Russell's breakthrough "The Devils", that takes itself so seriously as to sap the energy and arousal potential out of a softcore feature. That being said, the attention to detail and visual creativity make it of interest nonetheless.

The story such as it is has a convent in turmoil, with the mother superior (an earnest NonSex performance by Sally Tremaine) seemingly going crazy, having conversations with Mary Magdalene (played acidly by Kristina Bill) who is presented (in her mind) as sort of a Devil. Many scenes of nuns having sex are presented but most of the film (shot on video) is a talkfest with protagonists wondering whether some satanic cult is at work.

I was interested to see several topflight Adult Cinema actresses (of the future) participating in the most explicit, though strictly softcore, action, notably Michelle Thorne masturbating with conviction but hardly recognizable as this was shot before she had her iconic huge breasts surgically created, the naturally buxom Hannah Callow in a lesbian twosome, and lovely Majella Shepherd pawed by two lustful clergymen, years before she so memorably (and comically) took on Mandingo in the American porn video "Chasing the Big Ones 13".

Not bad for some soft core.

[wbaldwin80 · 2 June 2012]

I don't agree with the one star review, it is a class "B" movie for sure, but not that bad. Yea the acting sucked, its CLASS B! Yea you will FF to the sex scenes, I actually didn't, but I did not pay attention at all to what the dialog was when they had it... didn't care at all. If you are on netflix streaming, watch it if you like, worth the time. The three way scene makes it worth it. You get enough eye candy to get you excited, that's for sure. Or at least for me ;) The point of the movie is the head nun is writing for help because the other nuns are having sex and are not acting "Godly". She talks a lot to the head of the church and it goes back and fourth between them talking and the women having sex. Its great girl on girl action. You won't see any dudes, just women.