Sacred Flesh - Der Sünde verfallen

British nunsploitation, made as a tribute to the European nun flicks of the 70s (director/writer Nigel Wingrove is actually the founder of UK media company Salvation, which distributes work by directors such as Jess Franco, Jean Rollin, Dario Argento, Mario Bava, Bruno Mattei, and Lucio Fulci).

In the past (we don't know exactly when, but people travel around on horseback) a Mother Superior has become obsessed with lustful thoughts after hearing confessions from some of her young nuns. In her agitated state she imagines having a conversation with Mary Magdalene and (for some reason ) a zombie nun, during which she recounts four of these confessions. As she does so we see them played out.

All the young nuns are played by 'adult entertainment' actresses - not surprising given the scenarios are nude soft-core involving self-flagellation and/or sex between nuns. The acting is atrocious, and the 'story' is nothing but an excuse to show... stuff. However... compared to most skin-flicks (IMDb classifies this simply as 'horror', but let's call it what it is), it clearly has a budget, with a nifty title sequence, good location work (inside and outside), costumes, props, a (relatively) large cast, and a 1 hr 15 min runtime. The camerawork is also pretty good, and the girls are hot (although obvious boob jobs, lipstick, and nail-varnish do look out of place on nuns; no wonder so much stuff was going on!). Oh, for Brits there's a cameo by cult actress and sometime TV presenter Emily Booth. 5/10.

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.

Nigel Wingrove cocks a snook at the then recently retired James Ferman for his banning of 'Visions Of Ecstasy' a decade earlier.

A feature length shot on video imbroglio of cosmetically enhanced and fully shaven nuns doing close-up 'penance'.

Yes the scenes of the devilish succubus reciting arch dialogue are amusing, in a Lair Of The White Worm type way. But they are few and far between, and if you're not into the heavy breathing stuff, it's too boring waiting for them.

Very poor stuff all round. Redemption was so much better than this in the beginning when they got so many of us into obscure foreign horrorsploitation.

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.

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.