Search - Flesh for the Beast (Unrated Edtion) - Premium Box w/T-shirt and Novel on DVD

Lame. Terrible. Horrible. Buy it now.

M. Nichols | West Chester, OH United States | 09/22/2004

(5 out of 5 stars)

"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."

Redefines "bad"

O. Diaz | St. Petersburg, FL | 11/25/2005

(1 out of 5 stars)

"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.



"

Great First Movie!!!

Bill Charicenta | Roanoke, VA | 10/31/2003

(4 out of 5 stars)

"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"

Entertaining horror and smut hybrid

Matthew King | Toronto, Canada | 03/10/2004

(4 out of 5 stars)

"Well, what a pleasant surprise this one was. After reading all the negative reviews of this film I wasn?t 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 I?m a person who has been known to scour my video store?s bins in search of seduction cinema titles to see what Misty Mundae and friends are up to next so maybe that?s 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 70?s. 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 director?s 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 mansion?s 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 doesn?t fail to entertain or grab viewer attention. So lap it all up fans of trash cinema, this ain?t high art but it?s definitely great sleaze!"