User reviews

If you don't mind watching a B-movie from the late 70's, shot on Super 8 film, with an art-student edge and poor sound, then you might dig it. One of the reasons why you might, particularly if you are a Madonna fan, is the fact that this is practically the only MOVING FOOTAGE (rather than the many still photos)that captured her before she was a star, at that very interesting period when she was twenty in New York, had only been there for a year or two, and at certain periods was nearly starving. This is a very sexual movie, but not in a conventional sense, it is chock full of simple impulse and flirts with the satanic. In short, it's just plain weird. It probably would best be described as a few steps up from a homemade film. An interesting piece of TRIVIA is that at the time this movie was being made, right before the rape scene in the coffee shop restroom, the director did something to try to up the authenticity of Madonna's acting. Director Stephen Lewicki took the actor who played her rapist aside and instructed him to rip her blouse off during the scene---- a detail Madonna had no idea about. If you look closely, there is an undeniably real sense of shock on her face during the scene, and I remember reading in some biography of hers that they used that take, that the director was pleased with the result. (Madonna wasn't harmed, just a little surprised.) Another bit of interesting TRIVIA is that among her on screen "family of lovers" were a few people she actually hung out with at the time, including Angie Smit, a dutch girl who had studied dancing with Madonna before she dropped out, and later had a brief stint in a band Madonna spent a great deal of time with, "The Breakfast Club."

This movie has some parts to it that are hilariously retarted, and are actually amusing. I was (and still am) a die-hard Madonna fan when I first saw this movie, and even I was a tad disappointed. For all you folks who aren't a real big fan of hers, I wouldn't recommend it, but on the whole, as I said, it was somewhat amusing. IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR A MOVIE SHOT ON DECENT FILM, WITH ABOVE AVERAGE ACTING, YOU ARE LOOKING IN THE WRONG PLACE. THIS MOVIE IS INTERESTING AT BEST.

This is Madonna's film debut according to the DVD cover- And if she was the only one to ever be involved in film again, justice was almost served. This movie is terrible- from the talentless acting, a worthless script, horrible sound, and poor quality of the film in general, you will definitely want your hour back (which is how long this movie really is, although it seems like eternity) There is only one somewhat cool part of this whole movie, and that is the song at the climax. The 20 year-old Madonna shows a bit of flesh, but who hasn't seen her breasts by now? As magnificent as they may be, it's hardly worth sitting through this- skip right to the end, enjoy the song, and save yourself the other 55 minutes of suffering through the rest of the movie

First off Madonna appears VERY briefly in a few scenes ..the rest in an incoherent mess that looks like it was made by a NYC film student..a student that didnt pass. This is REAL bad..the worst drama i have seen.. avoid at all costs...dont say you werent warned.. On a scale of one to ten... 0

In a hilariously ironic twist of events, pre-stardom Madonna (Ciccone) is the sexual target here, that of lustful New York City street-demons who paw at her whitebread innocence in this super-tacky Super-8 fiasco. Long, rambling section with Maddy in the backseat of a limo, making quasi-jaded comments about her surroundings, will tire any fan's patience, and the surreal jumble which substitutes as the finale is the most garish and garbled ten minutes of celluloid I've ever had the misfortune of sitting through. Yes, it's terrible, it's excruciating, but I rented it with this in mind and I must say it did not disappoint...

This picture is so terrible that it may actually become an underground cult classic! It can't be judged by normal-movie standards; it has to be seen as a "grab-the-camera-and-start-filming-random-events" kind of experiment - and it fails even as that. Technically, this is the worst movie I've seen since Andy Warhol's "Trash", but "Trash" had Paul Morrissey to redeem it, this has nothing (apart from its short length). (*)

Everyone knows the story behind this movie... made long before it's star - the one and only Madonna - was a star and it promptly went nowhere. When Madonna exploded into the world of stardom this movie was dusted off by its maker and released on video - no surprise there. Madonna was none too happy about it - no surprise there either. In a nut-shell, this is a no budget, indie, artsy flick in which Madonna's character is gang-raped and then wreaks a bloody revenge on her attackers.   This film is almost always seen as completely atrocious... that Madonna's acting was something beyond terrible... and that the whole thing is just a piece of garbage. But let me tell you - I have seen a zillion independent, no budget, artsy,   rape/revenge flicks and "A Certain Sacrifice" isn't much worse than any other. In fact, it might even be better than some I've seen... not much better, mind you, but it can hold it's head high as not the worst of the genre. It's no "I Spit On Your Grave," (which, actually, is probably the best in the rape/revenge genre of horror) but it ain't THAT bad.

1st watched 2/24/2005 - 2 out of 10(Dir-Steven Jon Lewicki): Cheap, exploitation film featuring Madonna in her first starring role??? The only reason I'm giving this movie more than 1 star is because of the business sense of the filmmakers to put this together and make money off of the Madonna name. Other than that, the film itself, is pretty much about a low-life who becomes lower and lower, up into the very end of the movie. This low-life meets the Madonna character who runs around with a gang of lovers, and basically gets involved in satanic rituals, murder, and whatever else turns them on. Even a couple nude scenes of Madonna doesn't help this from being a cheap thrown together mess of a movie.

this "film" wants to be esoteric, but it fails to succeed. i wouldn't go as far as to say "don't watch it," because i sort of enjoyed it's campy, home-movie style. camera work and sound quality are no better than home movies that were made around the same time--when home video cameras were made available to the public. Interestingly, it seems Madonna has had her faux British accent since she was young. ;-) a large portion of the movie focuses on Madonna's breasts--they are exposed in many scenes throughout the movie. Seems right up her 1980's alley... The music in the flick is terrible and it is evident that Madonna is just a supporting character as none of the music is hers, nor is it her voice.

Complete basement junk, that will make you sick while watching! The biggest con in Video market history. First of all I like to say, that this movie was shot in 1979, before Madonna hit the big time. It was released in 1985, and Madonna tried to (unsuccessfully) file a lawsuit to ban the movie. And it's no wonder why, the story is so crap, that is not worth going into, the production value sucks (at one point in the movie we see the colors fade up and down, the sound is sometimes clear, and sometimes sounds as if someone's farting!!...... And I could go on.) and the acting is like as if the players can't wait to go home. Even the most obsessed fan of Madonna can't be interested in this junk. It is most definitely the worst film, anybody can see. I recommend this title, if they wish to go through an unbearable experience!!

I'm not a Madonna fan; I think she's a woman of average looks, little talent and nice boobs. The only value this film has is it's footage of New York at the end of the 70's. What a dark, seedy and fascinating place NYC was, before it dissolved into the antiseptic, bland, overcrowded outdoor shopping mall it is today. And "A Certain Sacrifice" really captures that, with it's grimy, seedy look and the pallid, half starved and tortured looking souls that act in it. As a piece of cinematic history it's undeniably fascinating, And with just a little more professionalism (or at least a tripod) this could have been quite good. The basic ideas are quite typical for it's time, with it's overt sexual themes and intentional strangeness. I'm gonna go out on a limb and recommend it to fans of weird, subversive cinema and for those interested in 70's New York city movies. On a side note, this movie showed a lot of scenes of video arcades and porn theaters everywhere, which is a reminder of just how much of a playground NYC used to be. And "Certain Sacrifice" makes it look like quite a dangerous place as well. Oh well, if nothing else see it for Madge's boobs. It's actually a lot better than "Swept Away.."

What can one say to defend a movie like "A Certain Sacrifice"? Even I, as much as I LOVED (yes, LOVED) this movie, must ask myself. As you may know from other reviews and such, Madonna has a very early role as a deathrocker who gets together with a very angry "philosopher" who left the suburbs for New York's underbelly. (I related to this on a lot of levels, so I know it's possible to say that there are some fascinating characters, events, and ideas in this ugly, little film!) Then, there's that "Raymond Hall" guy, who is quite the successful attempt at the creation of a character who is so repulsive, you just wanna get sick every time he's on screen (until he's about to be killed, then it's funny)! Anyway, Raymond is a horny, dirty IL' dude, who ends up raping Madonna in the bathroom, while loving boyfriend Dashiel (the philosopher... heh heh) waits for her to fix her make-up. The gory revenge that ensues (with the help of Madonna's Gothic sex cult, or her "family of lovers") gets cheezier and cheezier, but, thankfully, the filmmakers are well aware (they just don't give a f*ck). So... is the sound bad? YES! Is the dialogue sometimes hurtfully cheezy? YES! Is the acting terrible? Not nearly all of it. In fact, most of it was pretty damn good, even though Madonna's better acting moments were when she started to come off as a Goth castaway from a John Waters movie toward the end. (And, yes, I know John Waters doesn't have a lot of Goths in his movies, but it's the best comparison I can think of!) Anyway, is the gore very minimal and fake-looking? YES, but still it's a lovely touch! Is Madonna shown fully nude? NO, but she's shown topless several times, once even covered in the blood of her slaughtered rapist. Also: This movie MUST be seen when you're VERY intoxicated. Then it can sink right in. I've done it three times, I think I turned out alright, but my wife's head needs to stop calling me from the 'fridge. Time to listen to some more Pattnosh.... mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! FIVE STARS (and I HATE to rate things with stars!)

This film gained notoriety only after Madonna became famous and for a rape scene it contained.

It is a bargain basement film shot on Super 8. The male lead seems to have changed as the film continues, maybe because the film was shot over several years.

There is a story of sorts but it's bad. Madonna has some love slaves, meets a nice boy, gets raped by a weirdo and she and her friends get revenge on the rapist.

The only reason to watch it is because it has Madonna before she became famous.

The makers of the film said they wanted to show the seedy New York of the late 70s. I think they just wanted to make a quick buck from Madonna's fame.

This is by far the worst movie I have ever seen- given that it was filmed in the 70's. I could make a better home movie. Madonna was hot, but that's all I have to say about that! I understand that she was struggling and that she needed the money and that she did try to prevent them from releasing the movie later on when she became famous. I just think it's a miracle that she's gone as far as she has and been so successful after making a movie like that. Thank God for Evita and A League of Their Own- she got to later prove that she in fact CAN act. This is the worst directed movie and acting I have ever seen (with some pointless and poorly shot scenes going on FOREVER- the dude talking to the old man in the diner- what was that?!?!?). Well at least she reclaimed herself!...But seriously- I'll say it again- I have NEVER seen such a bad...no, HORRIBLE...no, what's worse than horrible?...just really really really REALLY bad movie!

No one is more surprised than I am, but I'll just come right out and say it: I don't think this is completely terrible. It's not good, no, yet I see the good ideas that it did carry, and the kernels of potential. I also see the mitigating circumstances that help to soften to at least some degree the harshest criticism that I'd otherwise impart. It's a movie that's as independent and low-budget as movies can get, and with that in mind one can surely regard with a bit more leniency the bottom-dollar production values, indistinguishable from any home video of the 70s, including wildly deficient audio. In the same spirit of generosity, one will observe that this was the first (and only) picture of filmmaker Stephen Jon Lewicki, so whatever his intent or guiding ethos was, maybe we can speak a tiny smidgen less nastily of the writing and direction. For that matter, excepting the star, this seems to have been the only film work of anyone involved, an apparent cast and crew of inexperienced non-professionals. Especially on that note, I don't think the acting is awful - I see the sincere effort put into the performances by people who had never been in front of a camera before in this capacity, and who for the most part never would be again, being guided by a filmmaker who as far as anyone can tell had never before held a camera or sat at a typewriter, and never would again. Maybe no one should have ever seen this in the first place beyond those who participated, and we absolutely never would have if not for the subsequent meteoric rise to stardom of a certain person - or maybe this really does make 'A certain sacrifice' a minor treasure, however variable the results were.

Jeremy Pattnosh, also acting and co-writing, provided a soundtrack of original music that is sometimes a bit questionable, but to my pleasant surprise can mostly be described as perhaps "earnest if extremely unpolished." More than not I actually rather like the music, and with a little refinement, these themes and songs would be even more genuinely enjoyable. Lewicki, Pattnosh, and Lewicki's co-editor Robert Manganaro Morris penned a story that's comprised of recognizable elements, however humbly they may present: romance, eroticism, drama, revenge, horror, and even a tinge of musical sensibilities. The story is decidedly scattered, desperately needed to be tightened and more focused, and denotes the amateur nature of the endeavor, but all the same I appreciate what these three writers put together. The scene writing is even rougher than the narrative at large, but bears serviceable foundations despite connective threads that are meager or in some cases just plain indiscernible. While it would have definitely been beyond the scope of this production, had the screenplay been developed more carefully - benefiting from resources, time, and experience that just weren't in play in this scenario - I could even see the trio's work laying the groundwork for a B-movie of much more renown (and less outright infamy). And it bears repeating that all things considered, the acting isn't wholly rotten. The worst that can be said is that it reflects the raw, untrained abilities of total novices trying their best. While the portrayals are less than great, I can see glimmers of the skills Madonna would hone as her career took off, and which her co-stars might have honed had they pursued careers in front of the camera.

I can say in all honesty that when all is said and done I had a fairly swell time watching 'A certain sacrifice,' much to my disbelief, and I admire what everyone contributed. That's not to say, however, that it's particularly good in and of itself, and the greatest magnanimity can't fend off each and every due point of criticism. The heaviest and most deserved of that criticism is concentrated toward a select few aspects. The first of these is definitely the dialogue, most of which downright hackneyed; while I don't think dialogue is necessarily the most important facet of most features, flaws are glaring when it carries language that is unbelievable, forced, or contrived, or needlessly embraces racist stereotypes basically as a joke, as is true here. The pieces of narration, by the way, are even worse. Second, as far as the writing is concerned, I would also observe the markedly poor cohesion between the ideas in the screenplay; it comes across at times as though only a draft or maybe even just an outline had been penned before filming commenced, with only the root concepts of a scene, and narrative flow between it all is very bumpy and inconsistent. I include, as prominent examples, Bruna and Dashiell's first meeting and the beginning of their relationship, and our haphazard "introduction" to Raymond. And just as the writing sometimes comes off as blocky and unfinished, third - Lewicki's direction is almost bewildering every now and again for how questionable it is. Again, one must make some measure of an allowance for inexperience, but at its worst, when it comes to guiding the cast and orchestrating shots and scenes, I've seen people pick up a camera for the very first time and produce more convincing scenes. The effect is compounded for the fact that Lewicki also serves as cinematographer, with no more practice in that regard. I see the good ideas this film could claim, and its potential, and I see the sincere intent to make a film despite such limited means and experience, but sometimes one just has to call a spade a spade.

Factor in the less than perfectly scrupulous manner in which Lewicki handled this picture, and its cult "success," after Madonna's career took off, and the image becomes murkier. Still, ultimately - I've seen far, far worse. Even the first minutes raise a skeptical eyebrow, and this is a ride peppered with more potholes than the most poorly maintained highway one could name, but I'd be lying if I said I weren't entertained to a quantifiable extent. Though the faults are undeniable, there is value here, too, in what is effectively an undeveloped prototype for what might have been a genre flick that in the right hands, and with the right treatment, would have been cherished. I won't begrudge anyone who sits to watch and finds Lewicki's sole output to be of too low a quality to stomach, but I would argue in good faith that this isn't entirely, irredeemably bad, and is instead is just too crude and unworked to find appeal with any but the most committed and ardent of cinephiles. Leave this widely unknown, mostly forgotten relic to those who follow whatever path their curiosity lays out for them: 'A certain sacrifice' is plagued with troubles, yet unexpectedly remains a bit of an uncut gem if one is receptive to what it has to offer.

To date I have never seen one of those artsy-McFartsy, ad-lib and let the camera roll-type flicks that I haven't hated. That's not to say one may not exist somewhere that doesn't suck but this one sure ain't it. Aside from that major negative, this piece of crapola manages to check a few more boxes that almost always send my thumb in the downward position: New York City, artiness, pretentiousness, and Madonna. How that woman managed to have a career is beyond me and, while it appears she had adequate chest meat back in the day, she was just an average-looking chick with marginal talent on a good day. I despised her from the very first time I saw her on MTV and my dislike has only intensified with time.

Clearly, this movie was just a student film and an obvious cash-in attempt by the film maker and to that I say, "Good job, dude!" Sure, this movie stinks to high heaven, but I enjoy the thought of how pissed Madonna had to have been that she couldn't stop distribution of this piece of trash. Make no mistake, there is NOTHING good about this film and even the glimpses of old NYC are the worst sort of fake, rich kid art school dreck. I hope the guy made at least a million at her expense.

A Certain Sacrifice is a basement film, or more accurately a guest room film. As the person who convinced S. Lewicki to finish this film I must stand up for it. This film has a small, but hard core, cult following because it is genuine and unvarnished. The technical quality may be non-standard in some spots, but the film itself is a true time capsule of New York in the late 1970's.

The actors were responsible for their own words. The camera work was dynamic and free flowing. The grim and gritty nature of this movie will stand the test of time as a testimony to all film makers that reality can be captured…that even the `home producer' has a chance to get his work seen by an international audience if the conditions are right.

This film is a "Blair Witch" cinema verite style revenge drama that may disappoint those who look for slick production values, but there are few films that can match it for its raw and natural portrayal of New York before it became a cleaned-up mega mall.

Complete crap! The biggest joke of the year, no wait, the biggest joke ever! Waiste of VALUABLE time and effort. Worse than basement junk. The only thing it's better than is sitting in bed vomitting, eh, even then doubtful. Even the story plots of the Smurfs cartoons seem like Oscar winning story lines compared to this complete, worthless, mindless, empty, pathetic, stupid, forsaken, unbelievable, no effort, cheap, no money budget, not even any snacks at break time during shooting, no class, boring, no pride, valueless, meaningless, piece of old car junk engine, "human made noises below the waste" of a sound track, embarrassing, shameful, and "cover your face for eternity for being seen in this" of a movie! The writer/director should be sacrificed!

Another piece or crap, from the Seven Keys Video collection. I watched about ten minutes of it. Some people out there too, may think I was being generous. How bad is this movie, sorry, correct me.-trash. Well it's not bad. It's beyond bad. It's an unwatchable view, with unbelievably bad sound, and an unbelievably bad actress, though it's a relief to see, Madonna pulled her socks up in the acting world, later on. The cover looks trashy and unappealing too, where though to a lot of us few males out there, can be inviting. I watched this out of curiosity as seeing it on the shelves for many years, where the first couple, I wouldn't be able to get away with renting it. She was repulsively bad in terms of acting and her features here in such a piece of garbage, it should be rated C for crap.

0.5/10