SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Micah Lloyd Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

Jenna Walter The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

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).

BA_Harrison 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?

dolce_knights43 "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!

Woodyanders 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.