Flesh for the Beast (2003) User Reviews

Impossibly Bad

[NIXFLIX-DOT-COM · 3/10 · 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

Disappointing B-Movie

[claudio_carvalho · 3/10 · 5 January 2009]

A team of parapsychologists is invited by John Stoker (Sergio Jones) to research the evil Fischer Manor, an ancient brothel where the owner Alfred Fischer (Aldo Sanbrell) was a gigolo that practiced black witchcraft. While investigating, the men are attacked by flesh-eater succubus and the psychic Erin Cooper (Jane Scarlett) seeks a powerful amulet for John Stoker. When they meet the trio of succubus, John discovers a lethal secret.

"Flesh for the Beast" is a disappointing B-movie with a different type of succubus that eat flesh, instead of drawing energy from the men during the intercourse; in this regard, the Canadian "La Peau Blanche" is better and better. In "Flesh for the Beast", the characters are not well-developed; the acting is weak and the story uses the all the clichés of "haunted house movies", with a group of psychics gathered to investigate supernatural phenomena in an old house. The best parts are the gore and erotic attack of the naked succubus, but they are not enough to make this flick satisfactory. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Carne Para o Demônio" ("Flesh for the Devil")

Into the bowels of Hell.

[lastliberal · 5/10 · 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.

Gork?!?

[ddukart · 1/10 · 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.

A horror of a movie

[superqd · 1/10 · 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.

Stick to soft-core fluff, Terry

[movieman_kev · 2/10 · 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"

Hopeless Horror

[kfashnj · 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.

The worst movie I've ever seen!

[hallowd2000 · 1/10 · 16 April 2005]

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.

Quite gory if nothing else.

[poolandrews · 4/10 · 10 September 2010]

Flesh for the Beast starts as six parapsychologist's arrive at an old house, an old very large house that belongs to a man named John Stoker (Sergio Jones) who has hired them to investigate the house & record any signs of paranormal activity. Stoker explains that the house used to belong to & was built by a man named Alfred Fischer (Aldo Sambrell) who was into the occult & black magic as well as gambling & prostitutes, rumour has it the house is haunted & Stoker wants any malevolent forces laid to rest once & for all. A psychic named Erin Cooper (Jane Scarlett) has repeated visions which Stoker wants to use for his own sinister motives while the rest of the team split up to search the house & are killed off by zombie ghost prostitutes know as Succubi...

Written & directed by Terry West not many people on the IMDb seem to have a good word to say about Flesh for the Beast & to be honest i can see where they are coming from although there were a few aspects of it I did like. A bit, anyway. The actual plot about a team of psychologist's exploring a haunted house & being killed off by zombie prostitutes isn't bad but too many scenes of people walking around dark corridors, repetitive action & twist's that make little sense sink it. The one big question I have is if the amulet thing controlled the Succubi why didn't Stoker use it to, erm, control them before they killed him? wouldn't that have been the logical thing to do? What were those other zombies about then? Why did they just sort of randomly disappear? If the zombie girls were killing the guy's to eat why were most of the bodies untouched? The final twist just doesn't make any sense, why was the 'surprise' Succubus not confined to the house like the other's? What were her motives for going along with Stoker's plans? None it makes a great deal of sense if you actually think about it. At 90 odd minutes it's a little long but there are a few good moments dotted throughout. All in all not as bad as maybe the IMDb comments suggest but still not particularly good, it provides boobs & blood which is all most will expect anyway.

As already suggested Flesh for the Beast is nothing more than an excuse to show pretty young women in states of undress & some blood splatter which is the sum total of it's ambition although maybe the script with it's ineffective twist's had slightly loftier goals but what ends up on screen won't impress many. The girls are attractive enough, they all strip at one point or another & that's all that needs to be said really. The gore is alright & there are actually some special effects rather than just blood splashed around, there's a severed arm, someone pukes his guts up, someone is crucified & then torn in two, a throat is slit, the women writhe around in guts & blood while someone else gets an amulet pushed into their skull. The house location is quite good & quite moody but the shot on video presentation hurts the look of the film, it just looks cheap rather than atmospheric like it should.

Filmed in Yonkers in New York the production values are low, it looks alright but the makers were obviously working on a tight budget. The acting isn't great, I've seen worse but I've also seen much better. Caroline Munro has a two minute cameo.

Flesh for the Beast is a low budget exploitation film that delivers on the blood & boobs but the plot which tries to be too clever for it's own good is far less impressive. I can't recommend Flesh for the Beast but it has a few half decent moments, just not enough to add up to a good film. Followed by The Pick Up (2009) & Flesh for the Beast 2 (2010).

A mediocre raunchy film with the power of Buckethead

[larryloyloy · 3/10 · 16 March 2016]

The film is not anything special. The film is padded out with a lot of nudity and gore and sometimes gory nudity.However there is something magical about watching three naked women batting around a dismembered corpse to a Buckethead solo. The soundtrack is definitely the best thing about this movie.

So overall you might as well skip this one unless you are a big fan of Buckethead's music and bad movies. The gore is OK but not amazing and the movie repeats itself a lot. Also it is quite obvious that the director normally directs soft-core porn films by the fact has people running around naked rather than an actual story.

What a Disappointment...

[CMRKeyboadist · 3/10 · 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

3.1/10 wtf?

[hearts2ashes · 10/10 · 14 October 2007]

flesh for the beast is one of my favorite movies. i haven't seen the uncut version, and that might be a lot less tasteful. anyways, this movie actually succeeded in really scaring and amusing me. especially the bathroom scene, that was creepy has hell. i think it's sad that on this site the horror movies that get high ratings and people defending them are like session 9, for example, which isn't even remotely scary and boring. yes, this movie may not have the most amazing acting. but, it's actually scary, and it is not boring. you can't judge a horror movie in the same way that you would a drama. because i mean, i don't know about anyone else, but when buy a horror DVD, i'm not expecting citizen kane.

Has enough gore and girls to provide some entertainment.

[Hey_Sweden · 6/10 · 15 February 2012]

Soft core parody filmmaker Terry West injects the expected dose of sex and nudity into this gritty horror / exploitation homage that if nothing else delivers on a visceral level. The set up is extremely familiar: a team of parapsychologists is hired by the crafty, cagey owner of a house (that used to be a brothel) that has a sordid history. It doesn't take long before the members of this team are meeting grisly demises as the house is the dwelling place for a trio of succubi with insatiable hungers. Yeah, this wins absolutely no points for originality, and, to be honest, could have been a little more fun. It goes more for ambiance (in addition to all the flesh) than action, and definitely can have less than patient viewers fumbling for their remotes. There is an air of self-consciousness about it, what with the characters being named after popular authors. The characters are not worth caring about at all, but at least one can more heartily enjoy it when they die horribly. The acting is as underwhelming as viewers will expect. However, Sergio Jones is a hoot as the dastardly homeowner, and Jane Scarlett is pretty cute as the psychically gifted, sole female team member. If one approaches this movie on this same basis as I did, because sultry Caroline Munro is in it, they may be quite disappointed as her participation is limited to a flashback sequence. This sequence features another veteran, Aldo Sanbrell, but the two of them have been better utilized in their past work. The level of blood and guts is impressive; indeed, the scene where one unfortunate schmuck is made to literally puke his guts out is a hilarious highlight. Interesting things are done here (or not done) with colour, and the music score by Buckethead is certainly one worthy component. While this is hardly anything great, or even that good, it's not as all bad as the majority of the reviews would indicate. Judge for yourself. Six out of 10.

worst horror film ever

[Suicide_Saint · 1/10 · 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.

Terry West does it again.

[Son_of_Mansfield · 3/10 · 9 April 2005]

Too bad the it refers to something that should be done in a bathroom. Yes, here we have another collection of "attractive" girls, horny guys, and demonic spirits with bad actors, a lazy script, and minimal scares. I understand that the purpose of this movie is merely to display flesh, but when a movie is as boring as this is, you don't even care about the nudity. Ruby is, once again, the only interesting girl. She has that mischievous look in her eyes. There was a male actor, who died almost immediately, that I liked; and the guy villain is somewhat intimidating. The movie feels too much like Satan's School for Lust, although some scenes are almost not lifeless. The music isn't bad. It adds something interesting.

not as bad as i was afraid of....Possible spoiler

[histstudent · 4/10 · 19 October 2004]

Not that bad at all! I had read some user comments on this site and was worried I was going to completely waste my time watching it. Nothing like bad reviews to set your expectations low!!! True, the dialog was awful, I mean painful in some places, but the gore was a beautifully bloody mess! Got to love it when someone vomits up their own intestines......

I thought it could have been made more interesting at the end. It was interesting how the esp gal was one of them too. It could have been played up a lot differently for a much better effect. And why if the guy had the medallion didn't he USE IT.

I read several comments on here that mentioned the soundtrack. I thought it was good, effective music in the places it was used....but i hate when the music is so much louder than the people's voices that you have to keep adjusting the volume.

Overall, definitely worth renting...good gore scenes although the sex scenes were unconvincing. And the guys kept saying how "hot" the women were although I didn't get that! Relatively unattractive bunch in my opinion....

Straight Up Porno

[sexytail · 1/10 · 3 April 2007]

The first sign of trouble for "Flesh for the Beast" is that the DVD case (which is otherwise very nice) advertises most prominently music by Buckethead. Nothing against Buckethead, but since when do people watch horror films for their music? Good or bad (I honestly can't remember), the music does nothing to save this poor excuse for a horror film, which is in fact porn. Sure, there's blood, zombies, and cannibalism, but the central focus of the film is sex and female nudity.

The plot concerns a crew of ghost busters hired by a rich man to investigate his haunted mansion. A video crew accompanies them for what I guess was supposed to be comic relief. Soon succubi show up and promptly take their clothes off to bed down with the male cast members before killing them. Each killing is preceded by a different succubus related sex fantasy. After the killings we are "treated" to a loooong sequence of the unfettered girl-monsters playing around in the blood. Anybody who sits this far into the movie won't be able to call it horror with a straight face.

And no, it isn't at least funny instead of being scary. This movie is a thorough going piece of crap that expects you to take each pointless scene seriously. It's all especially disappointing because the first scene makes it look like "Flesh for the Beast" might be a real horror film. Unfortunately, like the stud arriving to fix the cable, this is only a set-up.

There are a couple of twists that render the plot ridiculous just to reminder the renter/buyer of this film they've been cheated. I wasn't expecting a masterpiece here or even in interesting failure, but if I'd known this was a movie exclusively about hetero-porn I'd never have bothered with it. I wish distributors (this means you Shriek Show) would mark movies like this with a soft-core tag accompanying whichever genre their movie is pretending to be. The scariest thing about this movie is the DVD art which successfully hides nearly any trace of the film's pornographic content.

Smidgen Of Cleverness

[LeonLouisRicci · 2/10 · 21 December 2013]

If You like Your Soft Core filled with Average to Below Average looking Girls (that probably should refrain from stripping and trying to look and Act Sexy) here it is. In this Movie it happens (a lot). This is a D-Grade Horror from T&A Director Terry West. His claim to Fame is Creative Titles.

If You like Your Horror Movies with buckets of splatter and Below Average looking disembowelment, in this Movie it happens (a lot). This is an Homage to Sex-ploitation, Grindhouse, Softcore, Euro Trash from the Seventies.

There is a smidgen of Cleverness here and not much else. Also, the background Metal Music from a Band called Buckethead, that has a following, is effective. Speaking of buckets, as in buckets of blood, there is literally one Scene where, no kidding, buckets of blood are poured on the head of one of the Non-Actors. In the rest of the Movie they just use gallons.

To leave no Gore Cliché unused there are (a lot) of butcher shop products thrown in and around every other Scene to justify the Title. Bottom Line, it is not recommended for Anyone except those seeking out things that are Ugly and Yucky.

Into the bowels of Hell

[nogodnomasters · 5/10 · 30 April 2019]

A group of paranormal investigators check out a haunted brothel. They divide up meet a demon/ghost that treats them to their sexual fantasy and then eats them. Pretty much it. Something about an amulet too. Terrible film all around especially the masks. 3 stars for the full frontal nudity.

Parental Guide: F-bombs, sex, nudity (Jane Scarlett of "Satan's Schoolgirls", Caroline Hoermann, Barbara Joyce of "Satan's School for Lust", Ruby LaRocca who is in many Misty Mundae films)

What to do with this film

[michael-1020 · 3/10 · 30 December 2009]

Okay, to begin with this film was worth what I paid for it, which was less than a cup of coffee.

If you have bought this film and are disappointed with it, here is what to do.

You will need speakers that you can easily switch from one sound source to the other. Whenever the 'scary' bits turn up in this film, swap from the DVD audio to an mp3 player with the Scooby Doo theme on loop.

Because that's what this is, it's Scooby Doo horror and hilarious when you realise it. A group of mystery hunters investigate a house where people disappear, then there is lots of (female only) nudity and lots of (male only) blood and gore, then someone gets their disguise pulled off and everything is quickly resolved. And they would have gotten away if it wasn't for all you pesky monsters.

Don't look for good acting or good characterization, the men are all too stupid to live and the women are pretty shallow. Although in fairness the actors may be really great, they just don't get much to work with.

Getting it half right

[John_Mclaren · 4/10 · 17 April 2004]

This low-budget Euro-sleaze wannabe had much that should have been going for it. A haunted chateau, hosepipe levels of blood and cute girlies happy to share their comely wares with us. In theory it is exactly what the horror market needs given our long sleaze famine since the early 1980s. I was a wild optimist on first receiving my DVD.

Unfortunately it is brought to screen as a combination of "Blair Witch" and "Deep in the Woods"- without the latter's great cinematography. Its low budget allowance kills off any sense of mystery and wonder. Being shot with a home-vid look makes it seem like a half-baked indie effort. It frankly looks like a group of film students on an away day in dad's attic.

However what really seals the fate of this unfortunate exercise is the quality of the acting. It is truly WOEFUL. Ed Wood meets....well....Ed Wood. They must have signed up their local check-out assistants for this one. Lummie!!

So, Terry West and Co., you tried. You had the right idea. But....well.....you failed.

Much better than the negative reviews would have you think

[Woodyanders · 9/10 · 14 December 2005]

Boy, am I in the minority on this one. I thoroughly enjoyed this film and consider it to a very fine throwback to the gloriously down'n'dirty European exploitation horror films of the 70's. First off, I appreciated Terry West's moody and visceral approach to banging out a horror film. There's very little CGI (one quick morphing scene), the editing wasn't done in that hateful rapid-fire MTV music video style, and the digital photography was a tad rough, but overall quite spooky and effective. Moreover, the gore was plentiful and suitably sickening (splatter highlights include one guy vomiting forth his entire intestinal tract and another dude being literally drenched with a bucket of grue). The fact that the story was told with utmost seriousness and an increasingly all-too-rare sense of conviction (thankfully there's no dreadful "Scream"-like" "it's-only-just-a-movie-folks" self-consciousness to be found here) was a substantial plus. Okay, I'll admit that the acting was strictly hit-or-miss and the dialogue tended to be clunky. Furthermore, I personally found the much-derided sex scenes to be quite steamy and the much-maligned actresses to be very attractive (it's nice to see a recent horror film with equally ample amounts of both sex and violence that are prominently presented throughout with extremely graphic and unwavering explicitness).

The key aspect of this movie which for me makes it a true winner is the fact that not a single woman gets killed in it (with the notable exception of Caroline Munro, who gets offed in a flashback by Aldo Sambrell). For once it's only the guys who get gruesomely bagged left and right. On in interesting note, almost every last man gets offed after having sex with one of the succubi, thereby illustrating how sex can be used to manipulate men into a vulnerable position. It's this gender role reversal that makes "Flesh for the Beast" so refreshing. Usually just woman are killed for being openly sexual; here the tables are turned on the men for a change. (This is probably why a lot of folks don't like this movie.) And this pic even comes complete with a profound statement about how such fundamental human weaknesses as lust and greed feed evil and keep it thriving for perpetuity. It's articulated in a throwaway line at the very end, but it's a spot-on astute statement that I give the movie additional props for saying.

An unpretentious gore-fest.

[BA_Harrison · 6/10 · 20 November 2009]

With so many lame, low-budget horror DVDs misleading fans through the use of salacious cover-art, carefully selected stills, and provocative blurb, it's nice to find one that finally makes good on its packaging's promise of copious amounts of sex and violence.

Flesh for the Beast is not a great film by any stretch of the imagination—the story is clichéd nonsense, the acting is average at best (even from its two 'names', Caroline Munro and Aldo Sambrell), and the direction is uninspired—but it does feature enough gratuitous full-frontal female nudity and gruesome gore to satisfy most depraved viewers' lust for flesh, whether it be for the pink and supple kind, or the ragged, red and bloody variety.

As in Armand Weston's The Nesting (1981), Roberta Findlay's Blood Sisters (1987) and Lucio Fulci's The Ghosts of Sodom (1988), writer/director Terry West's Flesh for the Beast is set in a building that used to be a brothel, and which is now the centre of terrifying paranormal activity. The owner of the building, John Stoker (Sergio Jones) hires a team of parapsychologists to try and cleanse the property, but one-by-one the visitors are seduced and killed by the evil succubi that dwell there.

This rather cheesy set-up might not be that original, but it does allow for plenty of sleazy shenanigans, with the demons first appearing as randy young women in order to shag their intended victims, before eventually turning nasty and yanking out their internal organs and generally making a lot of mess: during the course of the film, Jones is absolutely drenched in the red stuff, one guy pukes up his guts (literally), the naked ladies playing the succubi writhe enthusiastically in a pool of blood and assorted organs, and even Caroline Munro joins in the bloody fun, having her throat cut at the end of her one brief scene.

Having seen a ton of low-budget horror way worse than Flesh for the Beast, I am genuinely surprised by the mostly disparaging comments here on IMDb. Don't people like honest-to-goodness sex and blood in their horror anymore?

"...flesh for the beast."

[Backlash007 · 30 December 2004]

Flesh for the Beast is a film that comes very close to B-movie hall of fame, and then completely throws it's momentum down the toilet. The first few minutes are really intense, the best in the movie in fact. I was really overjoyed by what was happening on the screen. Add to that a creepy score (provided by Buckethead no less) over the credits and I was downright looking forward to the next 80 minutes. I wasn't even bothered by the fact that it wasn't shot on film. I was willing to overlook it. However, I was not willing to overlook some very lame actors. Some of the worst I've ever seen. But I still didn't want to fault it; I wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt. This was going to be a classic. I mean Caroline Munro and Aldo Sabrell were going to be in here somewhere so the acting level would rise, right? Right? Not quite. They have one scene, and it's a flashback. The movie kills whatever class it could have had by throwing in a very bad sex scene every five minutes...literally. Not that it would have necessarily been a bad thing. Nudity is sometimes a must have with these flicks, but it's something you really don't want in this one. Like many others have pointed out, there's not a gorgeous women in sight. Not even a remotely "she's alright" one. I mean, was Julie Strain that busy? Why were these lame sex scenes tossed in? It just wasn't necessary. I've read that the film was trying to be a throwback to the 70's Euroshock era, and I supposed they succeeded more-so than not. But it still wasn't a good movie. I wanted a Night of the Demons style gorefest and I got just another terrible softcore porn that director Terry West has done in the past.

Note for genre buffs: A few of the character names are actually famous horror authors.

I enjoyed this film

[zippydidledo · 5/10 · 27 March 2005]

I enjoyed this film. Terry West has become a sort of "cult" director with campy SOV films for the terrible E.I Cinema label, (Satan's Cheerleaders, but the filmmaker has finally broke free from that campy crap to return to his roots of serious horror film-making. (like his serial killer flick Blood for the Muse) While not a flawless film by any stretch of the means, Flesh for the Beast has a very original story and is surprisingly well acted.

While I thought the cinematography was average at best, I think the director has a great eye for creepy set-up's and the slow deliberate pace kept me interested until the end. I can recommend "Flesh for the Beast" as a fun Saturday night schlock fest and I look forward to seeing what Mr. West will come up with next.