Flesh for the Beast (2003) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
45 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Disappointing B-Movie
claudio_carvalho5 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")
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Stick to soft-core fluff, Terry
movieman_kev15 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"
13 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
ddukart28 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.
23 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Impossibly Bad
NIXFLIX-DOT-COM7 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
17 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A horror of a movie
superqd1 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.
18 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An unpretentious gore-fest.
BA_Harrison20 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?
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Has enough gore and girls to provide some entertainment.
Hey_Sweden15 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
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.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Into the bowels of Hell.
lastliberal19 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.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Quite gory if nothing else.
poolandrews10 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
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).
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
What a Disappointment...
CMRKeyboadist18 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
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Much better than the negative reviews would have you think
Woodyanders14 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
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.
8 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Hopeless Horror
kfashnj11 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.
12 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The worst movie I've ever seen!
hallowd200016 April 2005
Warning: 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.
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Terry West does it again.
Son_of_Mansfield9 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
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.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Into the bowels of Hell
nogodnomasters30 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
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)
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
worst horror film ever
Suicide_Saint6 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.
14 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Flesh for the viewers
Bezenby15 April 2013
This film gets a bad rap on here, but how bad is a film that's full of wall to wall nudity and gore? Not that bad, I'd say. Fine, it's all cheaply done and mostly involves the characters being seduced and then torn to pieces, but it's a damn sight more interesting than a lot of the crap I've been sitting through recently.

A bunch of parapsychologists turn up at a famous haunted house, to do a bit of research. The owner, sinister and suave, offers them loads of cash if they can spend the night in the house and figure out what's going on. Our team of victims, I mean characters, involves three 'experts', two film geeks (one of whom, as per usual, remarks that the house would make a great horror film), and a clairvoyant whose brain damaged expression when she looks at a portrait of the original owner should give you a laugh. Everyone typically splits up and that's when things get interesting.

There's some Fulci-style zombies wandering around, but the main focus is on certain ladies our characters encounter. By turns our characters are drawn in by the full frontal nudity and seduction, but one by one find themselves eaten by the girls, who transform into horrible demons. For the most part, this is what the film mainly consists of. Then again, I wasn't really complaining either.

Gory deaths aside, there is some semblance of plot and exposition, and a couple of (well telegraphed) twists to boot. The soundtrack, by eccentric guitarist buckethead, is worth noting. Flesh for the Beast might be a cheaply made, badly acted gore fest, but at least it's got a bit of bite, and a distinct lack of smugness that a lot of horror films seem to include ever since Scream was forced upon us.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Straight Up Porno
sexytail3 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.
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Must see for horror fans
TdSmth525 October 2004
As explained in the bonus features, the producers and director set themselves out to produce a 70's euro-horror type film. Did they ever succeed! This movie looks, feels, and is written in the spirit just like those movies. That is, before horror movies had to pretend to be comedies to "justify" gore and before full frontal female nudity became a crime in the eyes of politically correct Lalaland. The gore effects are great, the story is intriguing and it even has a surprise near the end. You won't see MTV-style editing, or multicolored club-like lighting, or fiery and explosive conclusions. Sure, some of the lines could be delivered better. Still, this is a must-see movie for all fans of straightforward horror. Kudos to all involved for their fearless work in bringing back horror movies the way they are supposed to be. Can't wait for part II! (Comment on Unrated version)
7 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
not as bad as i was afraid of....Possible spoiler
histstudent19 October 2004
Warning: Spoilers
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....
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Lots of gore and nudity.Can't be bad.
HumanoidOfFlesh13 January 2007
A mysterious man named John Stoker invites a group of paranormal investigators to The Fischer House,which appears to be haunted.It turns out that occult sleaze-ball Alfred Fischer has turned his turn of the century whorehouse into a modern day Horror House with the help with Caroline Munro's Carla the Gypsy.The bloodbath ensues as the paranormal investigators are killed one by one by three sexy succubis."Flesh for the Beast" is far from being a good horror film.The acting is terrible and the script is pretty bad.Still the film is surprisingly enjoyable in a campy way.There is plenty of gore including fantastic Fulciesque moment in which a poor guy vomits up his entire digestive tract and some sleazy full-frontal nudity.7 out of 10.
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
"...flesh for the beast."
Backlash00730 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.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
3.1/10 wtf?
hearts2ashes14 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.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Getting it half right
John_Mclaren17 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.
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A must for growing teenage boys.
dolce_knights4329 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
"Flesh for the beast" makes no pretensions on being an art house horror film. This is a Grindhouse film of the highest order and it is supported by its simple premise: a group of Paranormal investigators are called upon a mysterious figure to investigate a house which has a knack for mutilating guests. Of course, they soon will follow the departed as a coven of full-frontal-nude nymphomaniac demons murder them in the most gruesome ways imaginable but not before having sex with them first. So you get your haunted house+full-frontal-nude demons+new ways to gruesomely die. Awesome! Based on what I read, people seem to be expecting some sort of story from this film. Good luck guys! Can't you people see that this is for the exploitation crowd? This is not a movie where you ponder on what a fat, overrated Italian mob boss is gonna do next. This movie is a throwback to the late 70's eurohorror trash we love like "Mark of the devil" and "Anthropopagous".

I loved the killings and the true greyhound's will love it too. Be prepared for gallons of blood and guts splashing on walls. Sexploitation fans need not worry too since I remember a lot of sex scenes before the killings. Enjoy!
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed