Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

Mjeteconer Just perfect...

GazerRise Fantastic!

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

LeonLouisRicci 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.

Paul Andrews 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).

drnrg31 I'll make mine short and sweet, because I wanna watch it one more time before I go to bed! It was given to me on Grindhouse double feature this Christmas. The second film is Shadow, Dead Riot , which I will review accordingly on it's movie page.First off all the losers calling it porn, obviously shouldn't even had the chance to see it. Furthermore, most reviews are missing the point that this movie was trying to convey. If it looks like a cheap b- movie, then good ,that is just what it wants to be. It's a homage to the horror sexploitation films of the 70's. It succeeds on all levels in that sense.Tru story. When I saw Caroline Munroe make a cameo appearance, I thought to myself, she looks pretty old, but it must be the makeup. Take into account that I really thought this film was from the 70's. So when I searched it and found out it was from 2003, I was blown away. I dare say it caught the Grindhouse vibe better than the Rodriguez/ Tarrantino vehicle of 2006.With that said, this movie is F***king great. If you can't appreciate that , then go back to your over the top big budget Hollywood crap Horror.

slayrrr666 "Flesh for the Beast" is one of the creepier zombie movies around.**SPOILERS**Arriving at a large mansion, parapsychology group Erin Cooper, (Jane Scarlett) Ted Sturgeon, (Clark Beasley Jr.) Jack Ketchum, (Jim Coope) Joseph Monks, (David Runco) Douglas Clegg, (Aaron Clayton) and Martin Shelly, (Michael Sinterniklaas) are greeted by John Stoker, (Sergio Jones) about the house being haunted. Almost immediately taunted by the supernatural forces, they go to work trying to rid the house of it's presence. Wandering through, they each encounter a force inside the house, and are soon under attack from demonic spirits. The longer inside the house, the more violent and intense the visions become until they are assaulted by a horde of ravenous zombies. Racing to unravel the mystery of the house's history, they work to get out of the house alive before they are killed and become inhabitants of the house.The Good News: This is one of the more surprising films out there. One of the film's biggest pluses is that there is an extreme and overloaded amount of blood and gore in this. This one doesn't skimp out at all, and really lets it fly. We get a finger into the throat, setting off a torrential rain of blood, a severed arm leaving a trail of blood on the floor from the stump, a victim tacked to the ceiling with pins in the hands, a throat ripped out, and the film's single most graphic kill, a victim has hands thrust into their stomach, playing with the entrails in the wound, followed by having his entire inner organs vomited up in slow, grisly fashion. With it being so realistic-looking, this derives a lot of pleasure from it's over-the-top feeling. Other times include a victim stumbling into the eviscerated corpse of a previous kill, which is missing everything from the waist-down and another character being completely covered head-to-toe in blood showered from above. There's really no stop to this, this is full-on all the way, and it gets major points for it. The location of the film, a giant Gothic mansion with long, dark hallways, huge rooms and decayed state provide some plentiful suspense. It's also suspenseful in it's own right, with a marvelous trick of having each character's death scene transpire by having them alone with the rest of the hallway or room completely black. A sudden noise or movement will draw them to their death, and the set-up works each and every time. The fact that the demons also appear in human form with the addition of solid black eyes is it's best trick, allowing for untold disturbances to come from it. The supernatural occurrences are pretty creepy, with voice-overs, instant appearing and disappearing, and much, much more. This has a mildly creepy atmosphere. They even look really creepy, with long distortions to the mouth and jaws and a solid, featureless face with the cold, black eyes. They're instantly memorable and look creepy. In the sleazy side of the film, there's an abundance of nudity in the film. Every major actress in this flick doffs it for the audience. Nudity is given in a rare full-frontal mode, allowing for it all to be shown. This one has a lot going for it.The Bad News: There isn't a whole lot wrong with this one. Most of what's wrong comes from the written side. The story itself is incredibly cliché, having been done countless times before and essentially copied verbatim here, offering no real surprises at all. This could lead the film to appear to be quite predictable, since it rarely wavers from the norm. the set-up has been done countless times before and this one is no different. Another flaw in the writing is that this has to be the flat-out dumbest group of paranormal investigators anywhere. One man after another falls victim to the wiles of the ladies of the manor, who, according to their client, shouldn't even be there. They were warned about it, and they still succumbed to the hordes. Not really wanting of the group. The film's last flaw, and it's most glaring, happens to concern the nudity. There are several sex scenes in this movie, but the men keep their pants completely on, and they last all of ten seconds. The simulated sex is so clumsy that there's barely any guilty pleasure to be had. Couldn't any of the demon/woman/seductresses at least pretended to take a guy's pants off before she started humping him? That seems like a rather basic requirement for what's transpiring, yet nothing comes off except the women's clothes. However, this one is really the most noticeable due to the amount of sex in the film, and isn't anything that could call for it's ouster.The Final Verdict: Beyond a few really harmless gripes, this one is a really good entry in the genre. It's got a lot to really like about it, including tons of gore and nudity, and would be a fine viewing for any gore-hound or zombie fan.Rated R: Extreme Graphic Violence, Full Nudity, Graphic Language and several sex scenes