Horrorwatch.com  
Movie Reviews | Book Reviews | Video Games | Articles | Horror Forums| Chatroom | Horrorshop
 
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
Reviewed by WL Paynecraft

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
Reviewed by monkeyghoul
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

Custom Search



hit counter
Horrorwatch, Horrorwatch.com and all content © 2003 - 2010


Horrorfind Banner Exchange