Main
Menu
|
|
|
Submissions |
|
Submit
a Review
If
you're involved in a horror movie, book or game and would like
to see it reviewed on HorrorWatch, click
here.
|
|
|
Flesh
for the Beast
|
|
|
|
|
I
had no expectations for this movie, since I had never heard of
it before. Plus I bought it with a gift card, so I really had
no expectations. I am still wondering if I liked it or not. I
was so unbiased coming into it, that I can't tell. Allow me to
elaborate:
The movie starts out in an old house or something and two guys
are running away from some kind of monster. It cashes one of them
in and catches the other, but we don't know if it kills him or
not.
Next, it is three years later and a group of paranormal specialists
not unlike the Lone Gunmen are coming to investigate this house,
at the request of a very familiar looking host. What follows next
is unadulterated succubus madness!
The whole haunted house thing with the crack crew of paranormalists
is not an original idea, nor is it a particularly interesting
one. People get separated, Geiger counters go off, and then people
get fucked up. Having said that, there is still something about
this movie that makes me want to like it, despite low budget and
unoriginal plot.
The gore in this movie is pretty good. It started out lame, with
girls with stupid masks holding pieces of rubber (that is supposed
to be skin) in their mouths and shaking back and forth. But then,
it’s almost like the director woke up and said “man
this flick is starting to royally suck”, because the kills
got kicked up several notches. There is pretty good violence in
this movie, but it is nothing above any other low budget gorefest.
The nudity in this flick is off the charts! Naked succubae are
crawling around and disrobing for your perverted pleasure. Every
major actress in this flick doffs it for the audience. Nudity
is what"s for dinner, and full frontal is the main course!
(Yes people, I am that good) The girls aren't really that great
looking (editor's note: this is Paynecraft's opinion, and is therefore
of no consequence) but who gives a rat's ass? If they're givin'
it up on screen, they have my full support.
Traditional females take heed however. There are several sex scenes
in this movie, but the men keep their pants completely on, and
they last 10 seconds. Talk about excitable! I'm more intrigued
about the logistics of having sex with your pants completely on,
but I guess the director wasn't. Anyway, I’ve dwelled too
long on this subject. We must move on.
Believe it or not, the plot really isn't that bad. Decent flashbacks
catch us up piece by piece. The ending kind of sucks and doesn't
make sense, but at this point I was indifferent.
The soundtrack was cool with frenetic metal mayhem primarily from
the enigmatic Buckethead. The atmosphere is fairly creepy. At
times there is no music and absolutely no light in the background,
building up a nervous tension that occasionally delivered. The
acting is terrible and the script is equally atrocious. What else
can be said?
Overall, you have a low budget horror flick here. If you like
metal, tons of nudity, and some gore, you will enjoy this. I give
this 5 out of 10 crucified token black guys on the ceiling. Don’t
ask.
This review was inspired by the fact that as low budget as this
movie was, it still kicks the shit out of 80% of the mainstream
crap being released today. This is why I exist.
|
|
Flesh
for the Beast
|
|
|
|
|
I wasn't expecting a whole lot going into this, and I guess
it's cool since I didn't get a whole lot out of it.
I was sorely disappointed in the movie's main villain, who
acted wooden and seemed more pathetic than wicked or scary. Far
too much of the dialogue was cliched and awkwardly timed, but
some was surprisingly natural. Some of the scenes were pretty
pointless, and the movie as a whole didn't have much point
to it, either. I liked the idea behind the ending, although it
was nearly ruined by overly blunt and useless dialogue.
On the plus side, however, a great deal of the art direction and
cinematography were quite well done; somehow they made fairly
plain rooms give off a really disconcerting atmosphere. The movie
may've been fairly derivative as a whole, but there was enough
creativity and creepiness to make up for it. Certain scenes were
very effective, such as an early one in which the group's
self-styled "leader" has an encounter with a key painting
in a mysterious room -- there is a great sense of growing dread
there that comes to a nightmarish (as in dreamlike) peak. The
succubi (if you can call them that) were pretty cool, especially
since they had distinct personalities (although they ended up
being cliches of themselves, but that's a minor quibble --
it'd be hard to avoid) and, yes, got nekkid. I was really
rooting for them, actually. And the gore effects were well done.
Bones, intestine, copious (and artistic) blood... good stuff!
4.5 out of 10 random zombies running randomly 'round in random
rooms.
|
(2003)
Terry West
Jane Scarlett .... Erin Cooper
Sergio Jones .... John Stoker
Clark Beasley Jr. .... Ted Sturgeon
Jim Coope .... Jack Ketchum
David Runco .... Joseph Monks
Arron Clayton .... Douglas Clegg
Michael Sinterniklaas .... Martin Shelly
Caroline Hoermann .... Pauline
Ruby Larocca .... Cassandra
Barbara Joyce .... Irene
Kevin G. Shinnick .... Jimmy/Zombie
Keith Leopard .... Zombie No. 1
Kelly Troy Howard .... Zombie No. 2
Zoe Moonshine .... Zombie No. 3
Michael Roszhart .... Zombie No. 4
|
|
Search
the Site |
|
|
|