 "Morality of the FLESH" | 2008-07-10 |
| - Reviewed By An Amazon User |
Flesh
This is a film of the late sixties that was shot with a rather amaturess genere for the reason of the effect it would have on the audience. Its entire theme surrounds characters in the Big Apple in the era of transition during the late 60s - early 70s. The director has shown the ultimate conflicts in moral judgements in this country in this film! His play-off of the characters shows exactly the problems facing society in general. By tracing this one man's life, we get a small glimse at the chaos that he is living through! This is one film that should be considered a Classic as it gives a very accurate protrayal of American life. AMORALITY!!! |
| |
 "IT'S ALL ABOUT JOE" | 2008-03-18 |
| - Reviewed By An Amazon User |
| Of course the main reason to view this film is Joe Dallesandro. Why else would anyone look at it? It is interesting in a slice-of-life pseudo-documentary way. The same kind of thing you could have seen a few years ago on Primetime Live without the aggravation of Diane Sawyer following Joe around asking him ridiculous questions. The choppy editing and lack of sound in some sections will surely aggravate many or make you wonder if you have missed something. But i mean really, there is not a great intriguing storyline to follow anyway. It is simply a day in the life of one maginificent looking street hustler in the late 60s. It confuses me whether Joe is supposed to be gay, bi, straight, nothing?? But i dont really care because just to train your eyes on him for 90 minutes is enough of a recommendation for anyone really to check out the film. Whether or not it qualifies as "art" or not, well that is the debate that can go along with any film. Entertaining? Perhaps. Eyecandy, most def. I'm glad i bought it. :) |
| |
 "Stange but fun movie" | 2006-11-03 |
| - Reviewed By bwmorders |
| Flesh is a strange but fun movie. It's a product of it's time and very charming. If you are a Joe Dallesandro fan it's a must. Lot's of him running around nude. |
| |
| "Dallesandro Has A Beautiful Smile - Who Knew?" | 2006-08-11 |
| - Reviewed By jwindham |
All I can say is, wow! Blame it on my having watched the Dallesandro movies in "reverse" - having viewed Blood for Dracula and Flesh for Frankenstein, I was prepared for another stone-faced portrayal by Dallesandro...the perpetual sneer worn over the rigid, blank expression that was Dallesandro's "trademark" in both films. Instead I was blown away by a fresh faced boy, with a beautiful smile, expressive face and dancing eyes. WOW! This film is a must for any Dallesandro fan.
The quality of the film is grainy, the sound is equally grainy and a little jumpy- but once you get used to these deficiencies, you quickly get caught up in the story. And I use the term "story" loosely since, from what I understand, the entire thing was shot without a script - allowing the actors to simply ad-lib. Be that as it may, the story line unfolds in a fascinating manner.
Once again, I was disappointed to find no commentary or interview with Dallesandro was included in the special features. Instead you get a commentary with Morrrissey that's only slightly interesting. I highly question his assertion that he was making some grand statement with this movie. I think that now, he wants to looks back in history and pull a grand statement from, what was then, only meant as entertainment. But then I've always found Morrissey to be a little egotistical. (Besides which, I think Morrissey should be kicked for turning Dallesandro into that stone-faced actor who wasn't allowed to smile.)
People should know that while this is by no means pornography, graphic male nudity makes this unsuitable for young viewers.
|
| |
| "Flesh" | 2006-03-15 |
| - Reviewed By jwsimmes |
| Joe Delesandro is great in this Andy Warhol movie. I watch it over and over. Not your ordinary theater movie. |
| |
| "Warhol Produced, Morrissey Directed" | 2006-01-01 |
| - Reviewed By An Amazon User |
Some reviewers are clearly unaware of the backstory to this film. Andy Warhol only participated in this film and those produced after it has Producer. Warhol only was only involved with the stars who were close friends, such as Candy Darling. Of course it is very easy to understand why; this film was shot only weeks after Andy was nearly murdered by SCUM founder Valerie Solanas (Salonas only starred in one of the infamous Audition reels, and had a brief role in I, a Man so I don't think she's deserving of the title Star). The closest that Andy ever came to directing after the incident was fueling the tension between his three Beauty Queens in Women in Revolt over the phone.
But making Joe a Street Hustler was Andy's idea. Andy was greatly dissapointed that the film Midnight Cowboy became so successful, he felt that it stole its plot from his film My Hustler starring Paul America. Joes original profession in this film was a Boxer, but Andy remembered hearing Joe talk about his days working the streets and asked Morrissey to make the change.
The Plot Synopsis that Amazon has given is inaccurate, Joe and his Wife are not Junkies. The real reason he is trying to earn money that day is to pay for his Wifes lovers abortion. You following me?
Flesh is best remembered for pushing the boundaries of male full-frontal nudity, but it has a great story to. The most obvious problem that I think people will encounter is the in-camera editing. This editing style gives a flash effect that does become a bit annoying, but it was done by Morrissey to reming the audience that they are only watching a film and probably to make them annoyed because you end up missing entire conversations. Also there are entire sequences done with no dialogue, and there is really no musical soundtrack to accompany the film.
My favorite part of the film is the characters who Joe encounters. This includes a hilarious artist with the habit of talking to himself, whom Joe models for, Joe's ex-girlfriend, a topless dancer, and her friends (one is a drag queen and the other is a pre-op in real life, but this isn't stated in the film), and Joe's friend, the dialogue hints a lover or regular customer, who was badly burned by a flamethrower.
In the end, I do believe that this film was made for a certain crowd. But it's not necessarily a "gay" film, and it's not just a nudity fest; there is a real and touching story to the film. For example, there is a very moving sequence where Joe is feeding his young daughter, it's moments like these that make the Warhol/Morrissey Films so great.
|
| |
