Beast Films review

Portfolio of 70+ projects viewable on-site, dated roughly 2018-2026, with named work for Nike, British Airways, Adidas, Zalando, DAZN, Tommy Hilfiger and Burger King, credited to 9 named directors. The Cannes Lions Bronze claim for Burger King 'Whopper No Show' (2018) is published as their own case study; independent corroboration of the award was not located first-hand, so award claims stay vendor-stated. Current, attributable, recognisable-client work supports Strong; Excellent withheld because big-brand attribution rests on their own site.

What this dimension measures: The primary reason to hire a production agency. Look for a body of work that is current, attributable and recognisable, with named clients whose brands carry real standards. Distinctive, consistently high-quality output for demanding clients scores 4-5. Competent, generic output scores 3. A portfolio dominated by work more than two years old scores 2 — the team that made it has usually moved on. Where reviewers independently credit narrative or storytelling ability rather than just delivery, weight that: turning a complex proposition into something clear is the hard part of this job. Counts for 25% of the weighted score.

Evidence: partly checkable — corroborated in part against the sources below; the remainder rests on the agency’s own account.

No published prices or packages. The homepage FAQ offers only a very wide orientation range ('a simple shoot may start from a few thousand pounds... larger commercial productions can range from GBP 20,000 to 100,000+'), and the corporate-video FAQ says outright that each project is scoped to the brief after a conversation. That is a vendor-authored cost guide, not a price anchor a buyer can plan against.

What this dimension measures: Published prices, published ranges by video type, or fixed productized packages score 4-5, and an all-inclusive fee that covers script, music, narration and revisions scores at the top of that band because the quoted number is then the real number. Ranges given only on request score 2-3. Bespoke-only quoting with no public anchor scores 1-2. Score scope clarity alongside price: a vendor that states plainly what it does NOT do — no shoots, no strategy, animation only — is more useful than one implying it does everything, and should not be penalised for the boundary itself. Counts for 20% of the weighted score.

Evidence: vendor stated — the agency’s own claim, recorded as theirs rather than ours.

Stronger here: Epipheo scores Excellent on the same dimension.

A five-stage process is published (Discovery & Strategy, Concept & Script, Production & Logistics, Post-Production, Delivery & Deployment) with stage-level timing on the homepage FAQ. No named collaboration tooling or defined approval gates. A 2020 Google review relayed on DesignRush credits delivery under a tight deadline 'with no compromise on quality', but there is no consistent independent record of on-time delivery.

What this dimension measures: Video projects fail on coordination far more often than on craft. Look for a described process, named collaboration tooling, defined approval gates, and independent reports of on-time delivery. Reviewers consistently citing clear communication and structured workflow score 4-5. No described process and no reviewer commentary scores 2-3. A vendor whose reviews mention schedule slippage or unresponsive periods scores 1-2 on verified evidence. Counts for 15% of the weighted score.

Evidence: partly checkable — corroborated in part against the sources below; the remainder rests on the agency’s own account.

Live-action TV commercials (15/30/60s), branded content, corporate, feature film, tabletop/studio filming, photography, and post-production including motion graphics; an Animation category appears in the work index, and multichannel delivery in 16:9, 9:16 and 1:1 is stated. Primarily a live-action director-led shop; animation depth is not demonstrated as a standalone capability.

What this dimension measures: What the agency can actually produce: live action, animation (2D/3D), motion graphics, studio versus location, and the format and aspect-ratio coverage needed for where the video will run. Both live action and animation, across multiple formats, scores 4-5. A single modality scores 2-3 — not a defect, but a real ceiling that the buyer must match against the brief. Animation-only vendors in particular cannot serve briefs that need people on camera, and that should be stated in the verdict rather than discovered later. Counts for 15% of the weighted score.

Evidence: vendor stated — the agency’s own claim, recorded as theirs rather than ours.

Nothing on the site states who owns finals, raw footage or project files, or how long music, stock and talent licences run. The corporate-video FAQ and services pages are silent on ownership. Per the rubric, silence scores 2 and should be raised before contracting.

What this dimension measures: Who owns the final file, the raw footage and the project files, and for how long the music, stock and talent licences run. This is where video differs most sharply from design: a licence that expires, or talent usage limited by term and territory, can make a video unusable in year two. Explicit ownership transfer with stated licence terms scores 4-5. Finals-only delivery scores 2. Silence scores 2 and should be raised before contracting, since retrospective clearance is expensive. Counts for 10% of the weighted score.

Evidence: inferred — our reading of indirect evidence, not a documented fact.

Stronger here: Epipheo scores Strong on the same dimension.

Realistic typical timelines are published: pre-production 2-3 weeks, filming one day to a full week, post-production 2-4+ weeks, and 'a few weeks to a couple of months' for corporate films. Honest estimates, but no fixed published timelines and no information on how far out they book.

What this dimension measures: Stated timelines from brief to delivery, and how far out the agency books. Fixed, published timelines score 4-5. Multi-month cycles are normal for high-end work and score 2-3 — score the honesty of the estimate rather than the length, since a realistic twelve weeks beats an optimistic four. Undisclosed scheduling scores 2. Counts for 10% of the weighted score.

Evidence: vendor stated — the agency’s own claim, recorded as theirs rather than ours.

DesignRush profile (read first-hand) shows a Google rating of 5.0 across 37 reviews with quoted reviews from 2020 and 2025; the Google listing itself was not read directly, so treat the count as relayed. Trustpilot (read first-hand) holds exactly 1 review from 2020 on an unclaimed profile, written by a user named 'beast london' in marketing-copy language. No Clutch profile located.

What this dimension measures: Volume and recency of independent, verified reviews. A substantial base on a verification-requiring platform scores 4-5; a handful of reviews scores 2-3; none located scores 2. Low weight deliberately — in this category a portfolio is more informative than a review count, and several excellent production shops have almost no review footprint because their work arrives by referral. Counts for 5% of the weighted score.

Evidence: partly checkable — corroborated in part against the sources below; the remainder rests on the agency’s own account.