MovieChat Forums > Flesh+Blood (1985) Discussion > Steven killed this movie in the end, mad...

Steven killed this movie in the end, made it way too sappy + predictable


First off, what a great first hour for a film. At the start, this film had it all. War, violence, betrayal, as well as the occasional soft core porno sex scene. However it didn't take long for me to immediately want the worse for Steven. Besides how he's the son of a arrogant douche for a king, he is quite the arrogant douche himself. There was just something about him that just made me want to see him dead in the end with Martin riding off with his Wench to be.

Now luckily I rented the DVD for this, so I was able to skip ahead to the end right when I realized that Steven likely wasn't going to die. Which was right before the chopped up dog got thrown over the castle wall. There's something about Steven just riding away with the Agnes scott free in the end that made me almost want to puke. How predictable and sappy can you get? The squeeky clean, yet brutally arrogant prince gets his proposed princess, how romantic if you never cared to pay attention.

Honestly, I expected so much more from Paul Verhoeven, especially given this films high rating. To me, the ending was so bad that I just hate this movie now. Clearly, even all the violence and soft core porno on the world can't save my interest with that kind of direction in the end.

reply

There were times when I hated Steve, too. He was the guy who talks a good game about being fair, but is actually only interested in being "fair" to his family.

He sort of fools us when he calls his father's treachory a dirty trick, and he makes us believe he is thoughtful and humane, but we see this is a facade when he threatens the mute nun just to force a man to ride with them. It makes me suspect that he never really cared about the men his father killed in his treachory, but was simply interested in challenging his father.

Martin also has a mean streak. In fact, the most likable characters are the two homosexuals. They are the ones we feel the most compassion for. And perhaps Hawkwood.

The film wasn't all lovey dovey, but it wasn't completely depressing either. The surviving characters go their own ways. The "doctor" adopts the new method of healing the plague. The good looking girl is still there for the soldiers.

In fact, on a scale of believable coincidences, the ending registered quite well with me. In essensce, the film says that these two who will become like king and queen are fairly reasonable people, but selfish. One wouldn't look for them to enjoy sadism like a Roman emperor. And we see how their lives affect others around them.



Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time
that's not funny!

reply

He sort of fools us when he calls his father's treachory a dirty trick, and he makes us believe he is thoughtful and humane, but we see this is a facade when he threatens the mute nun just to force a man to ride with them. It makes me suspect that he never really cared about the men his father killed in his treachory, but was simply interested in challenging his father.

Your reasoning assumes he is a two-dimensional character. There is no reason to assume, however, that he didn't care for those men. It's just that he can be hard when he has to be, like he told his father. Willingness to commit certain cruel acts as means to an end does not equate to endorsement of cruelty in ALL situations. And even that aside, he never showed any sign of wishing to rebel against his father, but seemed instead keen on wishing to prove himself to his father in his own way.

reply



Nobility = Scum

Son of Nobility = Scum


But did this movie say any different?

I thoought it was just realistically pointing out that the Scum often win. If they didnt often win then, by definition, they wouldnt be the nobility in the first place

reply

Actually I suspect Verhoeven thinks the opposite, thinks that YOU are the scum, which is why all his films are an embracing and even glorification of what you think is corrupt. And I agree with him. Go watch braveheart or something.



~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~

reply

Have you not seen Starship Troopers?

There is no way you have.

reply

So basically you're complaining that the characters weren't one dimensional little caricatures, that the "good guy" didn't triumph over the "bad guy", yadda yadda yadda? There are hundreds of crappy films that will satisfy you, *beep* off from this one.



~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~

reply


If there is any outstanding feature of this film its the fact that the lines are blurred between hero and villain.

Thats why I love it.

Its a proper story about realistic people.

I cant believe that some people dont like that fact.

People like jjk488 are the reason why most films are utter sh+te with sappy cr+ppy endings.

reply

Watch the ending scene again, and pay attention this time. She rides off with Steven, yes, BUT: We see Martin scrambling out of the ruins. SHE sees Martin. Steven doesn't. She doesn't tell him, but watches Martin steal away to safety. It is completely ambiguous where exactly her loyalty lies. She has a sense of loyalty to Steven, but also to Martin. It seems that she sticks to whoever wins, and she certainly wishes for Martin to get another chance.

reply

There's something about Steven just riding away with the Agnes scott free in the end that made me almost want to puke. How predictable and sappy can you get? The squeeky clean, yet brutally arrogant prince gets his proposed princess, how romantic if you never cared to pay attention. Honestly, I expected so much more from Paul Verhoeven.


See, Steve is not the hero, but neither is Martin. The ending was obviousely a twist of the typical Hollywood-ending, only this time the princess is riding off with a boring and arrogant prince while she's left lusting for the exciting villain! Trust me, Verhoeven knew what he was doing.

reply

This is a great thread for a great film. All the posts are very intelligent, but I think many here are overlooking the "good" in the characters.

Yes, they are three dimensional, even the ones we think of as the worst. I would expect that to be these three: Arnold, the cardinal, and the evil looking bald soldier, but Arnold does look out for the innocent people who would be victims when he betrays his mercenaries (although I think even here he is doing it out of a desire to do evil, since he does this continually). The cardinal earnestly believes in what he is doing, which is probably why he isn't where a cardinal usually is. These mercenaries probably were "his" guards at the start, and he feels a stewardship over them. I would guess the one he kills is one who wasn't part of his guard, and he never trusted that one to begin with. The evil looking bald soldier is very team oriented, and loyal to his friends. Sure, he turns on Martin, but he sees himself as Martin's competitor.

I think people are dwelling on the "bad" aspects of the characters too much. I see the good in them. And honestly, there are almost no "bad aspects" of the characters of at least four of them (Hawk Wood, the two gay soldiers, and the mother of the boy). Those four are very steadily noble of character throughout.





Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!

reply

I'm not sure I see that Steven is an arrogant douche at all. He is shown as intelligent & ingenious (his rolling barrel bomb and his armored ladder siege weapon); he cares for people (see how he tries to warn the man who blows up with the bomb, or his indicting words to Hawkwood about the brain damaged nun); he wasn't interested in marrying a rich virgin with a huge dowry arranged by his father. He says he wants to be a scholar and a scientist. He even puts on a hard face when Agnes is kidnapped in order to get Hawkwood on board to help him (but it was his father's idea to threaten the nun if Hawkwood declined).

reply