Watch Flesh For Free

Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

This is the epitome of the "experimental" genre.Very often, films like this are simply created at the whim of the director and producer - neither of whom really know what the outcome will be.These kinds of films usually are exercises in self-indulgence."Flesh" is no different. It's just that a lot of Andy and Paul do with Joe (and I'm sure that many of the scenes were realized fantasies of Andy's about Joe).Is this is a good movie? a bad movie? The answer is neither - it exists to be viewed by the people who are familiar with this genre.

It seems inhumane to describe someone as a work of art but in the WarholArt Sphere there seems little other way to describe Joe Dallesandro in"Flesh". His body is displayed constantly in the nude, more consistentlynaked than any other actor I can think of in American film history.Warhol/Morrissey (the authorship of the movie remains contentious thoughMorrisey is the credited director, the film rides under the "AndyWarhol's" banner) objectify and expose every part of Dallesandro'shustler in the film. He was truly the first sex symbol of the 70s. Itwas only in "Flesh" he was so un-self-conscious and innocent thoughalways with survivalist and self-serving cunning. Joe (the character) is an interesting kafka-esque (unable to control the world around oneself,prone to the ebb and flow of circumstance and external control) figurein the midst of a collage of underground culture figures of the 60s fromdrag artistes to quivering tricks. Its a high camp affair at times butMorrissey has a loving camera when it comes to Joe. Joe's beauty isvividly captured and the fly-on-the-wall style story of a day in hislife remains engaging a

Flesh is the first film of a trilogy by Paul Morrissey and Andy Warhol, and is perhaps the first attempt to create an icon of desire out of a male leading role. Although the film is focused on an uncomplicated character development of Joe (Joe Dallesandro), a gentle and subtly unhappy hustler, it depicts him as a passive and ambivalent object, who, in spite of a semi-evident sense of self-control, is possessed, shaped, and evaluated entirely by others. Joe is a young and somewhat naive Adonis who exudes comfort and beauty in his independence, but he works the streets to support his lesbian wife and her girlfriend. He is restlessly bored by an artist/customer's speeches on Greek athletic sculpture and 'body worship', but he sells his nudity anyway. He regards the increasing advances of his homosexual friend with ambivalence, but lets them happen nonetheless. This passivity dominates the film and succeeds in creating a visceral element to Dallesandro's appeal: not only is he desired, he is had.Perhaps the film's most interesting element is the balance of its obviously experimental nature with its palpable directness. The snappy editing and fragmented dialogue make it fresh and 'real', yet it manages not to rely on the clichéd abstractness of art-films. It is rough, and indeed a weaker effort than Trash or Heat, but nonetheless presents a collection of perfectly plausible characters in a light of almost absolute neutrality.

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")