IMDb > Flesh for the Beast (2003) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Flesh for the Beast
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Flesh for the Beast More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]
Index 41 reviews in total 

26 out of 35 people found the following review useful:

Gork?!?

1/10
Author: Randolf Carter from United States
28 December 2006

Excuse me, but I had to puke just remembering this film (if you can call it that).

Okay, who lets these people buy cameras and sneak their crap into the movie system? I started checking who makes the movies before I rent them, but this one slipped through,and believe me, the company is added to my "don't rent" list...right up there with Fangoria.

Don't get me wrong, I allow a lot of gray area for lower budget movies, because I am a die hard Horror fan, but I still believe if you spend money, you should at least be entertained, even if it is poorly.

This, on the other hand was one of those movies that don't do anything. I think at one point, I forgot to take it off of pause when I came back from wandering around outside out of boredom and it was in screen saver mode. It took me a few minutes of thinking the action was getting better to realize that it was the name of the DVD player floating around the screen, and I put it into "play" mode, missing the screen saver already.

Hands down, this is a movie that shouldn't have ended up in the rental place. If folks want these, get them from Rhino, don't torture us normal people by sneaking them into the actual movies by making a cool cover, distracting us with boobs and neat monster art, fooling us int renting them.

Was the above review useful to you?

20 out of 26 people found the following review useful:

A Total Waste Of Time

Author: Big_Captain_Splatter from C-Town
7 October 2004

This film was such a big disappointment. The trailer makes it out to be some kind of really gory horror film, but the truth of the matter is that it is nothing more then a sleazy porn movie with a couple of gory scenes.

The film actually started off alright. The acting was pretty bad, but just judging by the surroundings and the plot I thought this film was going to at least be worth watching. Well, I was very wrong.

The plot is about a man who lives in a mansion which he thinks is haunted, so he calls in a team of people who investigate supernatural occurrences, and things like that. I know, it sounds like it could actually be pretty cool, but with the director, the cast, and the script, it didn't stand a chance.

I should have checked the director's background before I went and bought the DVD. All he has directed is a bunch of cheap gory porn films with horror in the mix. But I saw the trailer, and saw the cover art, and it looked like something that might actually be cool.

Now I know what you guys must be thinking right now. 'What's your problem? All guys like porn!' Well you guys, I hate to break it to you, but this movie is terrible, even for a porn flick. The ladies who run around naked are not very hot, then range anywhere from KIND OF UGLY to EH, SHE IS ALRIGHT. And the sex scenes last about 10 seconds each. I think the uncut version might have longer sex scenes, but it costs more, and if I am going to spend extra money for a porno, it's not going to be this one.

Stay Away From It!

Was the above review useful to you?

16 out of 21 people found the following review useful:

Stick to soft-core fluff, Terry

1/10
Author: movieman_kev from United States
15 November 2003

A group of parapyschologists get a job in an haunted old mansion. Media Blasters released this in R-rated & unrated versions. I choose to get the unrated version, naturally. When Media Blasters first annouced they planned to produce original movies, I was hopeful, as Media Blasters,while not my favorite distributer of Dvds (that would be Blue Underground), are still up there. To say I was let down is a bit of an understatement. This piece of cinematic waste was written & directed by Terry West, known for his soft-core parodies (ie. Spider-babe, Lord of the G-strings, etc..). This movie reminded me of his soft-core flicks, not for it's sex scenes (those are laughably bad in this one), but for the insanely lousy acting. Horror fans deserve SO MUCH better. On a bright note, the girl who plays Erin is a vegetarian, luckily for her her role (and this film) has NO meat to it whatsoever.

My Grade: D-

Dvd Extras: Behind the scenes; Interviews with Caroline Hoermann and Aldo Sambrell (with his past, he deserved much better then this movie, in my opinion); Teaser trailer; stills gallery; Trailers for "the Virgin of Nuremberg" (with no sound), "Zombi 2", "Faceless", and "Blood Feast 2"

Eye candy: pretty much all the actresses get fully nude at some point.

Easter Egg: Highlight the Teaser in the extras menu, then press left for a live clip of the band "Buckethead"

Was the above review useful to you?

20 out of 29 people found the following review useful:

Impossibly Bad

3/10
Author: NIXFLIX-DOT-COM from www.nixflix.com
7 November 2003

FLESH FOR THE BEAST has a great name, I'll give it that. But it's a bad, bad, bad movie. Even for fans of the genre, who considers films like these as guilty pleasures, there's just no getting around the fact that BEAST is a bad movie, through and through. Worst of all, the director was responsible for a sea of cheapie sex flicks, but you wouldn't know that considering how awful the fake sex in BEAST is. I kid you not. You would expect someone who spent so much time shooting sex scenes, and movies with naked women, would somehow develop a knack for fine T&A. But alas, BEAST doesn't even give the viewer that. The gore is fine, but it could have been better. As a whole, the film is poorly executed, and the acting is, as expected, quite atrocious.

3 out of 10

Was the above review useful to you?

20 out of 29 people found the following review useful:

A horror of a movie

1/10
Author: superqd from Houston
1 November 2003

This movie was absolutely terrible. I am sometimes quite shocked that such ideas receive funding and actually make it to video. After watching the movie, it's actually quite hilarious listening to the director and producer wax philosophic about the degree of professionalism and quality they were attempting to achieve (but didn't). An especially funny moment (in the behind the scenes) was the producer describing how they spent literally months crafting the story and putting it together when one gets quite the opposite impression after viewing it.

I rarely rail on movies with such frankness, but this one almost angered me for wasting my time with such a poor effort. It only goes to show that it is not the paintbrush which makes a man a painter, but the images he creates.

Was the above review useful to you?

22 out of 34 people found the following review useful:

worst horror film ever

1/10
Author: Damien_Rose from Dayton
6 September 2004

this movie is a joke. it's so horrible, i can't believe that anyone actually would invest money in releasing it. the acting was worse than daytime soap operas, the special effects were more fake than a supermodels breasts, the production was lower quality than a middle school play, the plot was as interesting as a job at the cracker factory, the succubi, who were supposed to be seductive, were as alluring as a steaming pile of dog doo, the music, which was performed by an artist called buckethead, was actually more entertaining than anything about this film. lucky 4 me i rented it free. all in all, worst horror movie i've ever seen.

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 21 people found the following review useful:

What a Disappointment...

3/10
Author: CMRKeyboadist from Sleesburg, VA.
18 January 2006

Let me start by saying that I had been waiting to see this movie ever since I saw "the making of" on the Blood Feast 2 DVD. This looked like it was going to be just incredible. I kept thinking to myself "Man, that movie is going to be such a bloodbath". I couldn't have been more disappointed.

The story goes like this: there is an old mansion that used to be a Brothel about 100 years ago. Weird things happened and the place closed down with the owner of the place mysteriously disappearing. Present day. A group of ghost hunter's (I think) decide to explore the house and try to unlock its mysteries.

The opening scenes to the movie made it look like it was going to be incredible. Unfortuanitly, after the opening scene the movie falls apart. The first thing to go is acting. Now, I am the type of horror fan to overlook acting as long as the movie itself is interesting. Not so with this film. The acting was just atrocious. The second thing to go was plot. The movie quickly falls flat on its face as it would seem that the plot is going nowhere. The third thing to go was an over abundance of soft core porn. With a movie like this I would expect to see a few nude chicks here and there, but this is just ridiculous. Especially a scene where 3 woman are having a sensual moment with very fake looking intestines. The only thing this movie had at all was maybe 3 good death scenes but that's it!

Highly boring, no real plot, you need to be really loaded to like this movie. 3/10 stars

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

Hopeless Horror

Author: kfashnj from New Jersey
11 November 2003

I don't even know where to start. Let me just say that every time one of these new "horror" movies gets released, I keep hoping that this is going to be the one that finally nails it. Instead, I get a badly acted and badly written mess of a film that's only purpose seems to be to display gross nude women that you wouldn't even want to see naked anyway. The most thought seems to have gone into the awfully drawn out and completely rigid sex scenes that are about as tantalizing as the drab dialogue. However, the saddest thing about this film is that the gore sequences actually had the potential to be really creepy, if they hadn't gotten lost in all the other rubbish. After watching the documentary, I could see that the director was incapable of coaching an actress into being convincingly scary and "evil" as a demon. It also doesn't help that he hired a bunch of sleazy sex flick chicks who wouldn't know acting if it bit them on their pasty asses. I can honestly say that the best thing about this movie is the music by Buckethead. Therefore, I recommend that you go out and buy a Buckethead CD instead.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

The worst movie I've ever seen!

1/10
Author: hallowd2000 (hallowd2000@yahoo.com) from us
16 April 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

WOW WHAT A JOKE!!!! I think this is by far the worst movie I've ever seen.If you even want to call it a movie. Because its really a bad porno shot on dads video camera.There is really not to much i can say here this does not even qualify as a real movie.There is no story i can see here,There is no acting what to speak of but rather nude talentless naked bodies in this,these people are not real actors but rather amateurs that belong in porno movies.There is no real photography to speak of,but rather a home video or should i say home porn video attempt here.How does something as tasteless as this even get a video stores,its amazing to me.And the obscene amount of gore and blood is just laughable.What happened to CLASS! there used to be so many great old classics in this genre,what has happened to movies ,its so sad so very very sad.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Into the bowels of Hell.

5/10
Author: lastliberal from United States
19 August 2008

Gore Hounds will love this movie. There is more gore in the first two minutes than almost all of the "video nasties" I have seen to date.

A group moves into the house to search for evidence of paranormal activity - or maybe something more.

It does get funny at times when four zombies, including scream queen Zoe Moonshine, appear when one of the ghost hunters is stealing some jewelry.

But, it was Ketchum (Jim Coope) who got to meet the first succubi - in the flesh - and enjoy some hot sex before he was dispatched rather gruesomely.

Oh, what a fantasy! The young girl with her toys is met by another member. Unfortunately, he must have ate something wrong for dinner as he manages to vomit his entire insides. Didn't Fulci do that in some movie? The real reason this group has been hired is becoming apparent, and it all is in the hands, or visions, of Erin (Jennifer Litsch). It is in one of those visions that scream queen Caroline Munro appears.

We do get to see Litsch in full bloom as one of the succubi takes her form to dispatch quick draw Monks (David Runco). Then all the succubi (Caroline Hoermann, Ruby Larocca, and Barbara Joyce) dance around and chow down. Yum.

There is plenty here for those who love FX, blood and gore and lots of full frontal.

A great ending to a story that puts writer/director West in the giallo camp for sure.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history