I must disagree with several of the reviews here by our members. Not because I think this is a great film -- it's not. But because they seem a bit unaware of the situation.First, in terms of why the popularity of his films fell off. This film was a healthy money-maker, and so were several of his films after this. But, particularly in the early days of Hollywood, the film industry tended to go through cycles of "taste". Some of the cycles were stories about rich people all taking place during the Depression, stories about jewel thieves, stories that took place in exotic lands, etc. And one cycle was "Latin lovers"...a cycle which lasted about a decade, beginning with Valentino and practically ending with Novarro. And why did that cycle end? The coming of the American hero -- Gable and Cagney in 1931, just one year after this film. American tastes were changing.Second, rather than blame Novarro for the problems with this film, I choose to blame the director. Slow pace -- that's the director's responsibility. Meandering script -- how is that the actor's fault? Poor sound -- after all, the film was made just 3 years into the talkies and the big improvements that arrived right around this time. This looks like a fairly big budget film for MGM...consider the sets, for example.I found the criticisms of Novarro's acting interesting. It certainly doesn't fit today's tastes (nor does his singing voice...a style that was totally outdated by a decade later when the crooners took over. What did I see in Novarro's acting? He appears pleasant on screen here; a good person. But I saw gay mannerisms by an actor trying to be suave and manly. And that's why I think his acting here doesn't quite work.I know what you may be thinking. This review is just written by a Novarro fan. Nope. First movie of his that I ever saw. But what is missing in many of the reviews here is context. And the context is a threshold of change in Hollywood -- change in what is desired in a leading man, change is the type of stories to be told, change in the technical abilities of the Hollywood studios, change in the tastes of the American public.This is worth watching for a glimpse of really old Hollywood on the verge of morphing into the Gables and Loys and Cagneys and Davises.

I watched "Call of the Flesh" (1930) a romantic, musical melodrama with touches of comedy, that was a huge surprise for me. Surprise, because after watching "In Gay Madrid" (1930) filmed and released earlier the same year and after re-reading the pertinent passages from André Soares' very good Bio on Novarro "Beyond Paradise" my expectations were low, since Mr. Soares believes "In Gay Madrid" (1930) to be the best film that Novarro made with co-star Dorothy Jordan. (the other one was "Devil-May-Care" (1929)). Well, I am sorry to totally disagree, but for me "Call of the Flesh" is simply one of Novarro's best talkies along with "The Barbarian" (1933), "The Cat and the Fiddle" (1934) and "Daybreak" (1931) - I'm not counting "Mata-Hari" (1931) because it's a Garbo vehicle and not really Ramon's film.Mr. Soares and some other reviewers felt that Novarro plays an obnoxious, difficult to tolerate character, especially at the beginning of the film, but I found him most amusing and likable in a way. A sort of immature, mischievous, full-of-life young lad -much more appealing than Haines' truly obnoxious characters. Novarro is very charming and natural, in spite that some times he could be perceived by some to be a little bit "too much". For me he's fine.On the other hand, the chemistry between him and Dorothy Jordan is far more effective here than in the previous film I saw. Ms. Jordan really redeemed herself in my eyes in terms of acting. She's no Duse, but she did fine and she conveys the innocence and charm of a naive convent girl who falls for life outside the convent and for Novarro. The musical interludes, singing and dancing are much better in this film and it has better production values. In terms of cinematography, camera movement, pacing and editing it's "eons" beyond "In Gay Madrid" (1930); definitely Charles Brabin and his crew did a much better job that Bob Z. Leonard and his' in the aforementioned film. "Call of the Flesh" (1930) doesn't look at all stilted, stiff and creaky like "In Gay Madrid" (1930) did. Probably by the time they filmed the former the crew at MGM had already learnt how to overcome those shortcomings."Call of the Flesh" also benefits from an overall superior supporting cast, with Ernest Torrence fantastic as Novarro's mentor; ailing, lovely Rénée Adorée very moving as Novarro's fiery lover "Lolita" and Mathilde Comont hilarious as Novarro's landlady in Madrid.Adorée was gravely ill with TBC and was in very bad condition during the making of the film (and one can see it; she looks very frail and thin). In fact she and Ernest Torrence died a couple of years after this film was finished. I think that it was her final film.There are two alternate versions of this film: in Spanish and French, which I don't know if they are still extant, but I'd love to see.I was so surprised by this film (maybe, because I didn't really expect much), I enjoyed the romance, the musical interludes, the comedic touches, even the Operatic Arias (although like Jeanette MacDonald people who know about Opera, say that Novarro hasn't got a voice of a caliber enough to tackle such a challenge) and I was sincerely moved by the scenes towards the ending.All in all, a rewarding experience.

A brash cantina singer in Sevilla heeds the CALL OF THE FLESH when he romances a young postulant from a nearby convent.Sometimes movie studios make most unwise decisions, resulting in ramifications that can be quite detrimental to the careers of even their biggest stars. CALL OF THE FLESH is a case in point. Good production values & fine performances can not save this film from its one fatal flaw: it is difficult to like, or even tolerate, the hero.Ramon Novarro, usually quite the pleasant fellow, here is forced to play a repellent rogue who quickly irritates the audience with his cruel treatment of those who love him most. Oozing a smarmy charm, he alternately smirks & pouts his way through the plot, until his eventual - and much belated - regeneration. Novarro's undoubted acting abilities enable him to deliver a fine performance, but mischievousness mixed with too much meanness can result in viewer apathy.This did not help his career. The fad for the Latin Lover was wearing mighty thin already and would soon be completely eclipsed by the All American Hero, and Novarro's sexual ambiguity was always a bit of a problem for the MGM front office. The advent of Sound, while finally revealing his strong singing voice, also exhibited his Mexican accent, making it difficult to cast him in traditional roles. The Studio simply couldn't come up with a definitive screen persona for him, and so Novarro was made into their ethnic chameleon, playing everything from Chinese to Arab to Navajo.Novarro's costars come through very well. Dorothy Jordan is radiant as the innocent young woman who loves him with every fiber of her being; she delivers a heart touching, memorable performance. Flamboyant & hammy, Scottish actor Ernest Torrence is terrific as Novarro's friend & mentor - although one has to wonder just why he was willing to put up with so much nonsense from the little squirt. Equally adept at drama or comedy, Torrence's theatrical mannerisms and the contortions of his great homely face make him both entertaining to the audience and an enjoyable contrast to handsome Novarro. French actress Renée Adorée, in her final film, stirs up the flames in her role as Novarro's musical partner & lover. (Ill health would bring about the early deaths of both Torrence & Adorée in 1933 - he at 54 and she at 35. Today, these two fine performers are virtually forgotten.)Mention should be made of Mathilde Comont, hilarious as a rotund little diva turned landlady.Novarro is in good voice throughout, which is fortunate as the plot keeps him singing interminably.

Ramon Novarro is really great in this fairly ordinary film about a young singer and his love for an innocent girl. The plot calls on him to sing a lot - and he does so quite brilliantly. He is also called upon to go through some pretty heavy emotional stuff and he is nothing short of astonishing in these scenes. Also he demonstrates his usual charm, wit and joy of life - and proves yet again that he deserved better material than MGM offered him.It's easy to see why this sweet film was so popular in its day, and why it was re-made twice (in Spanish and French) in 1931, with Ramon starring in and directing both versions. It's all impossibly romantic and quite charming.Ramon's regular leading lady, Dorothy Jordan, is pretty good here, Ernest Torrence hams a bit as Ramon's dad, and Renee Adoree is wonderful in her last screen performance (she died very young of TB) - just as in "The Pagan" her love for Ramon is unrequited and she is ultimately self-sacrificing. Russell Hopton is, unfortunately, wooden as Jordan's brother and, as a consequence, his crucial climactic scene with Ramon does not work as well as it should have.Charles Brabin's direction and the screenplay are uninspired, but the film is worth seeing for Ramon Novarro's extraordinary performance.