GrimPrecise I'll tell you why so serious

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Lachlan Coulson This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Michael_Elliott Touch of Her Flesh, The (1967) * (out of 4) Richard Jennings (Michael Findlay) catches his wife in bed with another guy so he runs out of the house only to be hit by a car. Now, confined to a wheelchair, he decides to take revenge on any hooker/stripper he comes across. One of the first "slashers", this NYC cheapie might be one of the first of its kind but that doesn't make it a good movie. Like most of these films, the biggest problem is the fact that we've got 20-minutes worth of story and then 50-minutes worth of pointless and boring strip scenes. To me, that's why short films are often a lot better than trying to push something that isn't there into the feature category. Wall to wall nudity can't save this one. The first film in the "Flesh" trilogy. Curse of Her Flesh, The (1968) ** (out of 4) Second in the "Flesh Trilogy" has Richard Jennings (Michael Findlay) returning, stalking the streets for more women to kill. The bigger budget adds some better production values and the cinematography is pretty good here. The jazz music score helps move things along and Findlay does a better job with the story structure. However, there's still way too much dead space to be fully entertaining.Kiss of Her Flesh, The (1968) * 1/2 (out of 4) Thankfully the final film in director Michael Findlay's Flesh trilogy. Once again the psycho killer stalks the streets looking for women to kill. Boring on all accounts, as is the entire trilogy. These three films could have been edited down and together into a twenty minute movie and they'd still be slow and dull.

jpilkonis The perfect ten rating I gave this film has nothing to do with its technical merits. It's not a particularly well-written film at all. The acting, for the most part, is wooden (with one BIG exception). The music is strictly canned library music. But it's still at ten. It's a ten because, as a cinematic experience, there is nothing else quite like watching the work of Michael and Roberta Findlay. Nothing else compares. And if the goal of cinema is to take you into another world, this is the film that will do it, albeit a sick, claustrophobic, dirty one which will leave you drained and in desperate need for a shower.Other reviews cover the plot of this film sufficiently. What I'd like to focus on is the way this movie feels. Like other low-budget but truly inspired masterpieces - "Last House on Dead End Street" comes to mind as the perfect example - this film's technical flaws add to its creepiness. This film has no gloss with which to reassure us, and its starkness makes it that much more compelling.The standout performance I mentioned at the outset of this review is, of course, that of Michael Findlay. The fact that he stars in this film is no coincidence. In fact, nobody else could have done it, since what we're seeing in this film - as in most of the Findlay collaborations - is a very, very personal vision, a celluloid representation of the dark demons haunting one man's mind. While no one is suggesting that Findlay was anything like the obsessed monster of a man he portrays on the screen here - there is much evidence to the contrary, in fact - there isn't any doubt that Findlay wasn't exorcising demons from his own psyche with these films, which, for me, is what makes them so compelling. On screen, Findlay's hammy, bloated performances would be laughable if you didn't know you were watching someone acting out of the depths of his mind, which makes them both disturbing and compelling at the same time.An interesting experiment in watching these films is to compare it to similar, contemporary films, such as "Saw." While the violence in the latter movie is much more graphic, there's an intensity in Findlay's work which it can't even come close to.I say all these things only to the special few with the capacity to digest film this way, and I don't expect that to be a particularly large group. You know who you are. And you'll see this film for what it is.

JoeKarlosi Well, a-hem! ... This was my first introduction to the gritty works of husband and wife sleazemeisters Michael and Roberta Findlay, and it was quite an experience, let me tell you! This is about as far removed from our recent PC World as you can get! This was the first of a sexploitation trilogy of "FLESH" films that proceeded to get more and more violent, perverted and misogynistic with each filthy installment. That means they became more and more entertaining as they went along and, needless to say, this series is an absolute MUST for those men who enjoy raunchy grindhouse kicks, or men who just don't like women (and also for those of us who do, if you know what I mean). Things get a little confusing to start off with... For TOUCH, Michael Findlay directed (as "Julian Marsh") and starred as Richard Jennings, the world's first super-maniac, acting under the moniker of "Robert West" (but too bad he's not as interesting an actor as he is a filmmaker). His wife Roberta went by the pseudonym of "Anna Riva". The story deals with the anger and hatred a mild-mannered husband starts to feel for women after he finds his no-good wife screwing around in bed with another man. Running into the New York streets in a daze, he is struck by a car and loses one eye (which seems to alternately get healed and blinded again from scene to scene throughout the three movies) and also gets temporarily paralyzed. He becomes confined to a wheelchair and turns into a nutcase with an ax to grind - first against every stripper/hooker/go-go dancer he can find, and then ultimately against any member of the female race - PERIOD.There are many nude lovelies to gawk at during the 75 minute running time, and some rather inventive murder techniques for the times. But even with all the slime there is to savor here, I tended to feel that after getting off to a strong start, the pacing lagged too often with this first go-round. Things were to improve twice more, beginning with the first "sequel" in this chauvinistic series, THE CURSE OF HER FLESH. ** out of ****

Casey-52 Roberta and Mike Findlay made over a dozen nudie/sickie/roughies in the 60s and early 70s, culminating with SNUFF in the late 70s. Of all those films, the FLESH trilogy is the most memorable. TOUCH OF HER FLESH, CURSE OF HER FLESH, and KISS OF HER FLESH were three sickie classics starring Robert West as Richard Jennings, a one-eyed psycho who kills strippers in sadistic ways. This was his beginning and is a tad boring, but pays off.Richard Jennings witnesses his wife having sex with another man and runs into traffic. Losing one eye and temporarily paralyzed from the waist down, Richard vows his vengeance and vents his frustration while searching for his wife by killing strippers in inventive ways. He sends one a rose with thorns dipped in poison, shoots a poison dart into the stomach of another, and by the finale, a dagger, a buzzsaw, and a crossbow fit into the whole mess.TOUCH OF HER FLESH is really sick. First the audience is treated to coy sex scenes and stripping/go-go scenes, followed immediately by scenes of death and gore. I guess that's why they call them sickies. All the acting is bad, but most of the women would fit right in a Russ Meyer film! Top-heavy tarts make up most of the nudity here, which is pleasing to the eye and sort of differentiates this from other films of its kind. There are some good instances of cinematography and editing that are above par in an exploitation film as well.TOUCH OF HER FLESH is not for everyone and will probably offend those looking for a softcore sex film from the 60s. The version I saw was cut, as the film only ran an hour (original running time is 70 minutes), but the sex was not graphic; it's the gore that should draw audiences. Sadistic viewers should enjoy it, but I'm surprised cries of misogyny haven't plagued this film from its release! Not heartily recommended, but is worth a look if you're curious. And you should be if you're reading a review of this!