Flesh for the Beast

2003
Flesh for the Beast
3.6| 1h29m| en| More Info
Released: 27 September 2003 Released
Producted By: Fever Dreams
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

Six parapsychologists investigate a reputed haunted mansion and are set upon by three flesh-eating succubus ladies under the control of the sinister warlock owner bent on finding a mysterious amulet to give himself more power.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Fever Dreams

Trailers & Images

Reviews

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).
lastliberal 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.
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.
Randolf Carter 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.