Flesh for the Beast

FLESH FOR THE BEAST has a great name, I'll give it that. But it's a bad, bad, bad movie. Even for fans of the genre, who considers films like these as guilty pleasures, there's just no getting around the fact that BEAST is a bad movie, through and through. Worst of all, the director was responsible for a sea of cheapie sex flicks, but you wouldn't know that considering how awful the fake sex in BEAST is. I kid you not. You would expect someone who spent so much time shooting sex scenes, and movies with naked women, would somehow develop a knack for fine T&A. But alas, BEAST doesn't even give the viewer that. The gore is fine, but it could have been better. As a whole, the film is poorly executed, and the acting is, as expected, quite atrocious.

3 out of 10

A team of parapsychologists is invited by John Stoker (Sergio Jones) to research the evil Fischer Manor, an ancient brothel where the owner Alfred Fischer (Aldo Sanbrell) was a gigolo that practiced black witchcraft. While investigating, the men are attacked by flesh-eater succubus and the psychic Erin Cooper (Jane Scarlett) seeks a powerful amulet for John Stoker. When they meet the trio of succubus, John discovers a lethal secret.

"Flesh for the Beast" is a disappointing B-movie with a different type of succubus that eat flesh, instead of drawing energy from the men during the intercourse; in this regard, the Canadian "La Peau Blanche" is better and better. In "Flesh for the Beast", the characters are not well-developed; the acting is weak and the story uses the all the clichés of "haunted house movies", with a group of psychics gathered to investigate supernatural phenomena in an old house. The best parts are the gore and erotic attack of the naked succubus, but they are not enough to make this flick satisfactory. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Carne Para o Demônio" ("Flesh for the Devil")

The film is not anything special. The film is padded out with a lot of nudity and gore and sometimes gory nudity.However there is something magical about watching three naked women batting around a dismembered corpse to a Buckethead solo. The soundtrack is definitely the best thing about this movie.

So overall you might as well skip this one unless you are a big fan of Buckethead's music and bad movies. The gore is OK but not amazing and the movie repeats itself a lot. Also it is quite obvious that the director normally directs soft-core porn films by the fact has people running around naked rather than an actual story.

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.

This movie was absolutely terrible. I am sometimes quite shocked that such ideas receive funding and actually make it to video. After watching the movie, it's actually quite hilarious listening to the director and producer wax philosophic about the degree of professionalism and quality they were attempting to achieve (but didn't). An especially funny moment (in the behind the scenes) was the producer describing how they spent literally months crafting the story and putting it together when one gets quite the opposite impression after viewing it.

I rarely rail on movies with such frankness, but this one almost angered me for wasting my time with such a poor effort. It only goes to show that it is not the paintbrush which makes a man a painter, but the images he creates.