Customer Reviews

Flesh for the Beast (Unrated Edtion)

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

This is it, folks. The one you wait for. The PIECES for a new milennium. The not-just-bad-it's horrible-the-it's-beyond-horribly-laughably-bad-so-much-that-it's-wonderful FLESH FOR THE BEAST.

Plot? Why bother? A team of parapsychologists (most of whom resemble real actors - and who use such tools as radios, videocameras and what appears to be a Black-and-Decker electronic stud finder - "we've got paranormal activity every 16 inches!") investigates a mansion haunted by the spirits surrounding an evil con man/pimp/drug pusher - and pagan ritualist! - from the turn of the century. And one-by-one, our team is, you guessed it, flesh for the beast. To be exact, one by one, each horny teammate enters a room, finds a beautiful woman, makes love to her and then finds her turning into a monster and devouring him, usually from the intestines upward. This happens EVERY time to EVERY member of the team. Somehow, evenutally the fellow responsible for the carnage is revealed vis-a-vis a flashback with the WORST throat-slitting effect ever, but by this point, your eyes have glazed over as a result of an endless assault of bare breasts, crotch shots and evisceral munching.

Along the way, we're treated to wonderfully wooden and melodramatic dialogue, quotable snippets such as "makin' my bladder gladder...," and the use of the word "succubus" in the plural "succubi" TWICE. That's right, TWICE. All of this plays along to the sounds of one of the worst horror scores of all times, provided by Buckethead. I was surprised at how poor the score was considering that wearing a KFC bucket on your head while you play the guitar usually makes it sound so much better. Maybe you should wear the bucket on your head while you listen to the score.

You will hate this movie. You will want your money back. And you will immediately want to show this to all of your horror-fan friends. Some things are so bad they must be shared again and again. Luckily for you and me, this is one of them.

Well, what a pleasant surprise this one was. After reading all the negative reviews of this film I wasnt expecting much. Well, I felt Flesh for the Beast was much better than other reviewers gave it credit for. This movie is a cheap mixture of horror and erotica that undoubtebly would appall many but I liked it. Then again Im a person who has been known to scour my video stores bins in search of seduction cinema titles to see what Misty Mundae and friends are up to next so maybe thats just me.

6 young individuals (5 males, 1 female) are invited to the mansion of John Stoker. The mansion was first built many years ago by Albert Fisher, who used to peddle drugs and prostitutes on the carney circuit. Fisher built the mansion to serve as a brothel, for all intents and purposes. Rumors of dark pagean rituals forced him to close doors. A rumoured occultist, Fisher soon dissapeared, never to be found again. But the house and its rumoured paranormal activity remain. Stoker informs them that his mansion is haunted and enlists their services to exorcise and clean it of all paranormal activity.

As noted softcore smut director director Terry West explains in the extras his goal with this movie was to recreate the spirit of euro-sleeze horror of the 70s. Although filmed in America, all of the action takes place inside a mansion which enables West to achieve his goal. The mansion looks great and is absolutely creepy; a labyrinth of tunnels, foyers, red curtains and gothic furniture. The film is liberally sprayed with huge doses of gore and nudity. The recurring premise is that whenever one of the male members of the crew searches a room for paranormal activity, there lies awaiting a beautiful women who never hesitates to take off her clothes and engage in intercourse (and following that, decapitation). As a matter of fact the nudity and sex scenes are the best realized of the whole film which is not a surprise given the directors past film credits.

I do understand why many people dislike this film. The look is very cheap, akin to a BBC t.v. production. The acting of course is horrendous, especially from the mansions host who you think would have been hired to do a half decent job given the big role he has in the film. But worst of all are sheer moments of stupidity such as peeing in a toilet bowl without lifting the seat up first, and people engaging in intercourse without pulling down their pants! The sheer cheapness of this film bothered me for the first twenty minutes but once the filmmakers started piling on the nudity and the gore I found it effectively entertaining. Although many aspects of the film are bad, it doesnt fail to entertain or grab viewer attention. So lap it all up fans of trash cinema, this aint high art but its definitely great sleaze!

This is crap. They had a great mansion to shoot in (the film's only asset), but what happens inside is very stupid. There's no tension, no scares, just a lot of blood, guts (not that well done I might add) and a lot of sex scenes where men copulate with their pants on. The acting's sucky, the direction non-existent. There's little else to say about it. Stay away from it if you don't want your intelligence insulted.

Why do people automatically call crapfests like this "only for true horror fans" and such drivel. I've been a horror fan for years and years and know when a low budget movie is good and when one is crap. This...is CRAP! All us REAL horror fans rue the day they made digital camcorders and neato graphic art programs so easy to use and affordable, because now we have too many self proclaimed film makers crapping up the video stores. My children make better stories up with their homemade sock puppets. Stop luring us in with cool cover art, nifty taglines, then torturing us with stinko productions!!!!

I just picked up this DVD and I only saw articles on it in Fangoria but really was not sure how good the movie really would be. While not an epic it was definitely very good. The gore was over-the-top the way I like, old euro-style. The guy actually used real pig guts and parts not that fake plastci crap. The acting could have been better but all in all very entertaining and at the price it is really hard to beat.

I would say a great first effort by Shriek Show/MB and I can not wait for the next one. It reminds me of old style horror not a bunch of pretty people running around.

I recommmend you pick this title up and sit back and gore out!!

-horror-guru

This movie proves that gore alone does not satisfy, especially when the gore is as bland and unsatisfying as that found in this first release from the guys at Media Blasters and Shriek Show. The box this film comes in isn't bad, though; it actually makes the movie sound promising to a gore-hound such as me. The selection of extra features included on the DVD also led me to believe that the movie was one I could sink my teeth into, quenching a little of my perpetual thirst for horror in the process. Unfortunately, things go downhill quickly as soon as you open the box. Director Terry West seems proud of this movie, and that makes me feel a pang of guilt when I declare Flesh For the Beast one of the most boring, bland, uninteresting horror films I've ever seen.

All of the action in this low-budget disappointment takes place inside a haunted mansion. The back-story to the plot, as if it really even matters, revolves around the man who built the house originally (it was a house of ill repute, by the way) and his acquisition of a certain amulet resembling a frog who has just been flatted by a steam roller. Sergio Jones plays John Stoker, a man who bought the house five years ago and has been trying to rid it of its ghostly manifestations. Our would-be heroes (or nitwits, as the case would be) are the latest team to try and bring peace to the house; unfortunately, most of them end up trying to "get a piece" (if you know what I mean) and forget all about trying to restore peace. Yes, the house is haunted, and yes, our main characters each run across something not human; strangely enough, these so-called parapsychology "professionals" never even entertain the notion that the naked women they find in this "empty" house are anything more than real women desperate to make mad, passionate love to them. There is a lot of gore, none of which is impressive in the least, and basically you just sit there counting the minutes hoping every single character in the movie dies a horrible death. Lo and behold, there is a plot twist toward the end - I have to give the writers credit on that point; it's actually quite a trick to pull off a plot twist in a movie that has almost no plot to begin with.

I know this movie did not have a large budget, but the special effects are just not very good in the eyes of this horror lover; the blood works, but blood is easy; the disemboweled guts are acceptable; the whole cannibalism thing offers a little satisfaction; but the makeup and masks worn by the "ghosts" did not impress me at all; the best looked like they had been bought at the nearest retail outlet store. I actually suffered through the 30-minute-long featurette included on the DVD, as well, and the guys actually went into great detail on the whole special effects work; seeing how it was done made it even less impressive after the fact. I think the biggest weakness this film has, though, is the acting. If each actor had carried copies of the script around with him and read each line directly from the page, I think it would have been an improvement over the wooden, disaffected performances turned in by virtually everyone (except Ruby LaRocca, who actually does a pretty good job playing the silly character she portrays). Scares? Frights? Forget about it; there is nothing remotely frightening in or about this movie. On a final note, I have to say that even the DVD is exceptionally annoying. The first screen to come up after the legal notices featured four unlabelled medallions; the first one gave me a quick clip of a woman screaming at me, the second one ended up making me watch all the legal junk again, and the third eventually took me to the actual movie menu. I don't know what the fourth selection might do, and I have no desire to find out. My copy of DVD will almost surely remain inside the darkness of its case from now until eternity.

And I'm still laughing. This movie is really horrible. Is it supposed to be horror or soft core porn? I'm not sure which but either way it has the plot for both. I bought this movie years ago and decided to watch it tonight because I really have no life. The only thing good about this movie is Buckethead's music and that is the only reason I bought it in the 1st place.
If you like cheesy horror with nakie girls and awesome music then you might like this.

I will be completely honest with everyone out there about this film. Caroline Munroe, ex-Hammer Films (Dracula A.D. 1972 and
Captain Kronos Vampire Hunter) babe is in this godawfull mess
so I just had to buy it. Caroline has a really small part in this film as a psychic fortune teller but she is still beautiful. Nice to see her again. No, this film is not all that
great I admit, but it is a heck of a lot better than House of the Dead. Tons of nudity and blood abound in this film though.
I predict that someday this film will achieve some sort of small
cult status among some gorehounds out there. Look what time did
for Plan Nine From Outer Space.

Warning! This is a cheesy horror film, shot on low budget. I don't think they spent 5K on make up and effects, and yet still I (as a aficionado of cheesy horror flicks) actually found myself enjoying it.

A team of parapsychologist experts are hired by a man who recently purchased an old mansion once known to be a notorious brothel. He fails to tell them he is looking specifically for a medallion that will give him power over the succubi that still inhabit the mansion.

One by one, as usual, the males of the team are picked off by the saucy succubi as they materialize with full knowledge of the men's fantasies. Can it really be true that men become this stupid by the sight of a mere breast? According to this movie, yes!

A higher budget would have made this much better, but if you are ready to settle in for something cheesy you will more than likely enjoy this movie.

Silly women, silly men, hungry succubi, a power hungry bad man, nudity and sex....well, there you have the makings for a horror film...it just needs more blood. Enjoy!

I suspect that this is one of those Love it Or Hate it films.
I'm not a Gore-hound, in fact some great Horror has had very little gore.
This Film starts out with a Brilliant Story line, and just trashes it. If the Script was redone and had the supernatural line done properly ( and Photographed better), then the film would work, in my view.

However, I like Attack of Killer Tomatoes, so you never can tell about taste.

Actually, This is one film since I viewed John Cassavetes in INCUBUS, which I would say to anyone who asked... "Don't Bother"... there are far better and far scarier films around, and ones that have better sound too.