Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Abegail Noëlle While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

bettycjung 4/25/18. I decided to watch this because it's considered a cult classic that was produced by Andy Warhol. Watching this 50 years after it was released does give some perspective. Basically, it's horrible. However, I can see why Warhol was fascinated with Dallesandro. He's one cool dude, absolutely photogenic and totally unbashful about showing off his wares. Other than that the cinematography was awful, the film editing choppy, the plot - non-existent. You can watch it for the sake of curiosity, but don't expect to be blown away by its lack of Art.

Polaris_DiB Flesh is about a bisexual prostitute who spends a day trying to make enough money to pay for his wife's girlfriend's abortion. It's cheaply shot, cheaply edited, and cheaply produced, so some extra attention has to paid to the dialog because sometimes it's a little difficult to hear, though the imagery is straight-forward enough. The actor who plays Joe spends about half of the screen-time completely naked (and yes, Morrissey doesn't shy away from showing everything), and basically through a series of scenes and conversations in the streets and cheap apartments of New York you get a pretty interesting though somewhat dragged-out portrait of the sexual underground, populated entirely by passive, unintellectual people who live John to John and are ultimately unable to even think about what they'll need in the future. Though the acting is poor (and made worse by the editing, which cuts off some of the dialog in parts), there's a sense of realism here that goes beyond the likes of Midnight Cowboy and Dog Day Afternoon, more mainstream movies that can use the crisp production values and stronger acting as a sense of removal and distance between the subject and the audience ("after all, it's just a movie"). The dialog, in its meandering and mumbling glory, is actually really well written, making it a shame that it's so poorly delivered because it really does provide a gateway into understanding these characters. In the end, though, if this movie doesn't shock you it might not be that effective otherwise, because it is, after all, a story about bored people with no motivation.--PolarisDiB

Dellamorte_Dellamore07 Flesh (1968) Director: Paul Morrissey **1/2outof**** Review After just reading "The Andy Warhol Diaries", I then proceeded to seek out his films, and apparently all he did was fund this and raise its publicity. So I shall leave out my interest in Warhol for the sake of this review. I watched this twice just to see how I really felt (the first time I felt nothing towards it). I felt the second time that the movie has an indistinct quality that makes you want to keep watching, I can't deny that. The movie is virtually plot less and really is a camera put on actors while they most likely improvise most of their lines. At least it really felt that way.The movie is choppily edited, the lighting is murky, the film is grainy, and the sound is horrendous. The actors are the main joy in this movie (well actually only a few). Seeing Joe, Geri, the awesome Candy, and funny Jackie all hanging out and talking was the main highlight for me. I found Candy simply endearing, and the characters were all comfortable together (like Joe nonchalantly putting his arm over Jackie) and it made it an effortless watch.From reading some IMDb reviews about this, it seems that a lot of the stuff went over my head in this movie, as I rarely picked up on of the undercurrents of deeper meanings. Nothing really clicked, it wasn't that I didn't get it, I mean mostly it was people standing around and talking, what's the "meaning" towards that? The scenes of ambient design were the films main flaw. Too much of nothing, I know this is underground art house stuff, but seeing long shots of people sleeping, simply staring, or stretches of no plot or dialog is extremely hard to sit through for me. If I want art, I'll watch Argento or David Lynch. The "art" here was curiously out of my grasp. More just like a flimsy documentary (as maybe that's what it really is). So investment in visual design is out of luck for me. Still, the movie has a compelling current about it.From the plot I picked up, it's basically Joe trying to make 200 dollars to save up for his girlfriend's lesbian lover's abortion. We get to see him wake up and then the film ends with him sleeping. So basically a day in the life of Joe, the hustler and the people he encounters.As expected with a Morrissey/Warhol/Dallesendro production, I expected nudity and got it. The movie loves Joe's body, but from my perspective, the male and female nudity was somewhat…clinical to make it fully erotic. Usually full frontal nudity will make people uncomfortable for some reason, but I watched this with 3 teens and none of them were annoyed by it, signs of a good approach or self confident teens? Some people will write this off as art house porn, but there's something about it that wasn't raunchy like most porn's tend to be. It didn't come off as art either. So I'm not sure what I would label this as. Is it simply underground or experimental film making? I first discovered Warhol at the age of 13, were I watched Mary Harron's "I Shot Andy Warhol", the movie was a pure gem, and quite authentic, from the research I did about the factory. I'd prefer watching that movie countless times then the actually Warhol deals. All these movies are somewhat forgettable, but that's' just my opinion. Obviously this will appeal to the real purists (who probably were aghast when reading my preference to Warhol) and not for someone born right before Warhol passed away. Still, I gave it a chance and still found it quite original in places.Praise must go to Candy Darling. She had me sold, she seemed so nice and warm, a easy going person, and it's a shame she passed away. She was simply awesome! I also found Joe's performance quite interesting, he seemed naive, sardonic, and withdrawn all at the same time, his facial acting really told me what he was thinking (or not thinking) all the time.The movie didn't change my world, and definitely is more Morrissey's work then Warhol. So take it in stride and see if you like it. On to Heat and Trash I go.

Marek-2 I was a junior in high school when "Flesh" hit the big screens, but had the good fortune to see it at midnight movie houses in NYC just two years later.Flesh is the first part of a so-called "trilogy" of films, featuring Joe Dallesandro, as an object of desire. It bears the "Warhol" name, but is more the work of Paul Morissey. Essentially the story concerns itself with the exploits surrounding one day in the life of a street-wise male hustler (played by Joe Dallesandro). Joe is young, beautiful, and a bit naive... but he manages to bring home the bacon to his wife, for reasons which should not be explained to appreciate the film fully.Of special note to film buffs is that this film (along with the remaining two of the trilogy), had no script, per se. Warhol's superstars were given simply a premise... and the words and actions which the viewer sees are quite natural (even at times ridiculous or non-sensical). But all in all it works... "Rolling Stone" noted in its review that the film was better than "Midnight Cowboy", a film of the same year, more polished by Hollywood (An Academy Award winner for Best Film) , with big name talent (I equally admire the film)... but FLESH, being improvised, was somehow more gut wrenching and realistic, without the need for complex sub-plots and any "cause de celebre" .. or for that matter any cause at all!The film grossed more than $3 million dollars and was an absolute sensation, particularly in the German market (which, ironically, thought they were given a "censored version" of the film because of the post-editing....see note below).Curiously, the film is very much "cut and paste" with "pops". "clicks", "flashes", and dialogue literally cut off mid-sentence. It is almost as if Warhol/Morissey are stating a simple truth that it is a "day in the life" of a superstar, snippets for your voyeuristic tendencies. Far better than earlier Warhol works of 8 hours of sleeping, and the statue of liberty as a 20+ hour movie.FLESH, in my opinion, is the first of the Warhol films that actually is digestible (given a wide pallette) and Warhol's/the Factory's first legitimate response to the Hollywood phenomenon of "stardom".As the first of a "trilogy", it portrays a young, desirable male icon, naive, sought after, responding to invitations to please his family. Subsequent films would show the "same character" with a differing set of values. (See "Trash" and "Heat")