tlavideo.com

greggy wrote on 04/10/2010:

The idea that a gay college student would work for a cheap/dirty house of prostitution isn't even close to being realistic. There were lots of ways for a hustler to be independent and advertise his services, even before the internet. That's one stupid 'college' student who can't figure out how to avoid a pimp. All the trade who work in that squalor are junkies, like the lead character's sister.
That whole junkie sister story line should be thrown out of the movie. No one supplies a junkie w/stuff and then leaves them alone, unless they're trying to kill them. Since the junkie is his sister who he's supposed to love dearly, then why doesn't 'college' whore boy get her some professional help? I guess 'love' and stupidity are one and the same here. The two main characters are nice looking, but because of the unbelievable story line and poor writing (use of cliches etc,) to advance the 'plot', neither one comes off as believable.
The own director doesn't even believe in his own story in the director's comments part of the DVD! There was some suspense, and the main actor (Dane Ritter) got me to care about his dumb-ass, but not enough to recommend the flick.

John Nail (tojonail@bellsouth.net) wrote on 06/06/2004:

It's refreshing to see gay-themed films moving away from the usual subjects of coming out, finding "the one" and/or AIDS, but "In the Flesh" misses the mark as both a thriller and a gay film. This Atlanta-set story has some intriguing moments, but the mystery isn't all that compelling. "In the Flesh" is even weaker as a gay film, with characters who seem more like case histories and full-fledged human beings. In their scenes together, the leads--Ed Corbin and Dane Ritter--act like two straight guys dared to kiss each other for $100. Corbin acts like a deer in headlights in all his scenes, though Ritter manages a passable performance. As an Atlanta resident, I enjoyed seeing all the familiar locations on screen. There are certainly worse gay thrillers than "In the Flesh," but there are also a lot better ones, too.

rob wrote on 03/04/2004:

I was very disappointed by IN THE FLESH. I think the story was a great idea, however the execution of it was poor. I thought Dane Ritter as Oliver was fair, however Ed Corbin has the charisma of a rock. Even though they become lovers, they rarely touch. They are more like best buddies. They're show of affection reminds me of a throwback to the early days of celluloid when gay love had to be hinted at as opposed to shown.

Magilalama (TOMKATTT@aol.com) wrote on 06/18/2001:

I just LOVE this story about a male hustler and a "VICE" cop, who fall for each other, who knew!!
I love Oliver, I just love the way he dances, and he's so adorable! Even though he knows it, he's VERY INSECURE when it comes to his own worth!
I like the way Phillip "tries" to show Oliver that he's WORTH more then just "hustling"!
Then they finally come together, too bad that it took a tragedy to bring them together!

James (jridout@ix.netcom.com) wrote on 09/13/2000:

The strength of "In The Flesh" was the screen play. It was beautifully written and flow along nicely. The movie leads you to believe that a sensitive good boy raised on the right side of the street can take a turn to the shady side. As good as the movie was, it lacked chemistry between the two main characters. Although there was a strong desire between the two men, there were no hints erotic scenes, passionate kisses, or romantic caresses. On the plus side, the story moves with no dead intervals. The actors are attractive and leave their viewers glued to the set. The tormented Oliver (the hustler)is capivating. I strongly recommend this film.