Intense, gripping, stylish and poignant

After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Terrific silent melodrama starring Greta Garbo as a seductive woman who comes between two lifelong friends (John Gilbert and Lars Hanson). It's a beautiful-looking film with great direction and cinematography. Also some sizzling chemistry between Garbo and Gilbert. It can be very corny in spots with an unintentionally funny ending that you have to see to believe, but I think the good outweighs the bad. Modern audiences will probably also find a great deal of subtext between the Gilbert and Hanson characters. The two men are frequently affectionately embracing one another and at least half a dozen times in the film I thought they were about to kiss. Add to that the movie's basic message of "bros before hoes" and you come away with a different interpretation of the film than was perhaps intended. Then again, maybe it was the point of the story all along. At any rate it's a good film whether one wants to think about the different layers or not.

Flesh and the Devil (1926) may be the best example of how beautiful and technically accomplished even the most routine studio project could be back at the beginning of the Golden Age of Hollywood in the 1920s. In their heyday, silent films were far from incompetent and primitive; they glistened, the camera work was creative, and the stars were luminous.Flesh and the Devil could have been a pedestrian melodrama with the wrong staff. The story was a common one even for the time: two friends fall out over the love of a seductive woman. What elevates the material are Clarence Brown's direction, William H. Daniels' glowing cinematography, the subdued acting from all involved, and especially the chemistry between John Gilbert and Greta Garbo.Of course, the film's fatal flaw as far as modern audiences are concerned is its misogynistic undertone. (Spoilers ahead) The woman must be punished for her transgressions while the two men are allowed to reconcile. Garbo is continually contrasted with Barbara Kent's innocent, pious character, who never once shows an ounce of desire and thus is more suited to marriage with the protagonist. It is as critic Linda Williams once said: when the woman reciprocates the man's sexually-charged gaze, she must be destroyed. That this ending is also dramatically unsatisfying and anti-climactic almost kills the picture entirely.Luckily, Garbo elevates her character from the sexist stereotype she embodies on the page. Even though she is selfish in the extreme, I would be hard-pressed to say she's evil. She brings a vulnerability to the role, making her more sympathetic. And in the end, she does realize the error of her ways before being punished via death. Without Garbo, the character would be just another heartless vamp.In spite of these issues, this is still a worthwhile film, if only for its technical beauty. Paired with the Carl Davis score, it's a magnificent piece of entertainment, a simple melodrama delivered with all of the trimmings.

Honest, I'm trying hard to appreciate Garbo's celebrated beauty, and to picture her as an object of desire - not mine, but someone else's. I think there are too many years between us and too many other prettier Hollywood stars. I did think she was an excellent actress and was right for the part of Felicitas, although I felt she slightly overdid it towards the end of the story. Speaking of overacting, I thought Lars Hansen (Ham-sen?) was guilty at first, but his style and character soon grows on you.I liked it and, intimidated by the rave reviews and comments by other contributors, I shall see it again. I have to admit that silent soaps are not my cup of tea. John Gilbert is not my cup of tea, either, but passed muster in his role. The animal magnetism between the two stars? Yes, I suppose. Let me watch it again and I'll get back to you. I just feel the films' reputation is a bit overblown. Hedging my bets, I rated it a 7.

"Flesh and the Devil", the 1926 silent film, brilliantly directed by Clarence Brown, was shown recently on cable and the most amazing thing happened: the film looks superb! "Flesh and the Devil" has one of the most amazing team behind the camera, one that made its stars look so magnificently that one can't take ones eyes from the screen for fear of losing something. In addition to the superb director, the work of William Daniels with his camera is amazing. Mr. Daniels created images that are hard to forget.The opening sequence of the film involving the arrival of Leo and Ulrich in their hometown, has to be one of the best things ever filmed. When Leo discovers the beautiful Felicitas as she descends from the train and walks to the awaiting car, where he runs to rescue the flower arrangement she inadvertently had dropped, is charged with desire and raw sex. Hollywood was more daring during those precode days when anything seemed to go.Greta Garbo and John Gilbert make this film something to watch again and again. Both stars exuded such charisma that it's not hard to realize they were lovers. Ms. Garbo looked lovely in all her scenes and Mr. Gilbert was one of the handsomest leading men of the era.One of the best things whoever restored the film was to add a great musical score that makes watching the pleasure it is. Also, in spite of being a silent movie, "Flesh and the Devil" has such a fluidity that, at times, we forget it's not a "talkie", because of the magic that Mr. Brown, and his cinematographer, William Daniels, were able to do together. Of course, the film is what it is because of its stars' magnetism and the way they make us care about the story.