Flesh for the Beast (2003)

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).

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?

What a Film, Very Bloody in Details, But the Lady's are very sexy and naughty with Nudity. it is really a bloke film and its very good. There are a lot of bad reviews but trust me it worth watching because it is a mess up film but great. A B side film with a twist. the horror and flashbacks is great, the film is Cert: 18 for a reason, the film reminds me of Hell Asylum, There is a uncut version at thats what i got, i don't know what the cut version like probley less blood overview a 9/10 Film, I don't know why the reviews are bad because it worth watching and buying, Great Film, The Lady's are sexy with Nudity the blood Details are just the best if you liked Hell Asylum and mixed up film just your thing.

"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