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?
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?