If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

This is really quite a pleasure if you happen to be a fan of giallo and slashers- though really more the former than the latter. The Flesh and Blood Show is an excellent film that far preceded the American slasher craze, and even just barely the giallo films of Italy. This film was made in England in 1972, and while it seems quite a rudimentary slasher in this day and age, at that time it was really quite innovative. Along with A Bay of Blood, this may have jumpstarted the slasher craze that began with Halloween and Friday the 13th (not to mention The Texas Chainsaw Massacre), but really had it's roots with early exploitation films like this. The Flesh and Blood Show has tons of atmosphere and a fairly engaging story, but rather skimps on the blood. Most of the murders take place off scene and the ending really begs for more but overall I really enjoyed this.

This reminds me of a slimmed down version of the mighty Vincent Price vehicle 'Theatre of Blood', which was released the year after this. Filmed for the most part in the Pavilion Theatre in Cromer, this involves a group of unemployed young actors who are invited to an abandoned theatre by the sea to perform a play, where one by one, they get brutally murdered. The location proves to be an excellent horror venue. Cut off from reality to certain degree, it becomes a world within a world wherein literally anything can happen.Ray Brooks is the head of the young actors group and he provides a reassuring lead as much around him falls apart. The occasional showing of the police doesn't seem to improve the situation, and only the friendly local Major Bell (encountered in a local café, which provides a brief yet strangely sinister respite for the troupe) seems to provide a reassuring outside presence.Jenny Hanley, whose identity is somewhat enigmatic by the close, plays posh Julia Dawson. Unlike her appearance in 'Scars of Dracula', she is allowed to use her own, un-dubbed voice – which is fine. Quite why the producers of the 1970 Hammer picture insisted she be dubbed by another actress is a mystery – and to her also, according to interviews. Hanley is also subject to clearly having a body double for revealing close-ups. I wonder how she felt about that? This is one of Director Pete Walker's better films. Not quite on a par with 'Frightmare' a couple of years later, but coasts along at a good pace, and punctuates the uneasy atmosphere with occasional scenes of gore. The climactic moments were apparently shown in 3D on the film's initial cinematic release.

Walker's first horror film is an intriguing and enjoyable mix of sex and chills set in an abandoned theater; interestingly, in the accompanying interview on the DVD, he states that the nudity was deemed obligatory at the time if the picture was to hope for a distribution deal (particularly since Walker was his own financier).The plot starts off by having eight out-of-work actors being convened to the aforementioned remote location by a mysterious employer; though they occasionally indulge in the kind of silly yet pretentious improvisational exercise also at the core of Jacques Rivette's insanely-long (13 hours!) OUT ONE: NOLI ME TANGERE (1971), they're often just interested in getting laid and the girls in particularly act like sluts most of the time!! At first, I was annoyed by this apparent laziness in scripting (by Alfred Shaughnessy, a respected if little-known director in his own right) – but, then, it's revealed that this was the reason these young and 'morally corrupt' folk were called upon to begin with (as the continuation of a notorious incident from the wartime era which had actually caused the theater's closure).The male members of the cast are effectively enough led by Ray Brooks (from Richard Lester's Swinging London comedy THE KNACK [1965]) and also include Robin Askwith (soon to rise to dubious prominence with the smutty "Confessions" films) and veteran Patrick Barr (who turns in a bravura performance, particularly once his true identity is exposed). As for the girls, they all look great in and out of clothes – particularly Jenny Hanley (who, interestingly, discovers to have an inextricable link of her own with the gloomy theater) and Luan Peters (who escapes the murderer{s}' clutches the first time but not the second).The film attempts a reasonable imitation throughout of the Italian Giallo style (that country, then, paid it the compliment by borrowing its single setting for Lamberto Bava's popular but third-rate DEMONS [1985]) – though it culminates with a rather unnecessary 3-D gimmick (which Walker had already utilized in the lackluster "Rashomon"-type sex comedy THE FOUR DIMENSIONS OF GRETA [1972]). For the record, of the director's horror outings, I've yet to get my hands on SCHIZO (1976) and HOME BEFORE MIDNIGHT (1979)

Pete Walker was one of the most remarkable directors in the British horror industry and most of his efforts (especially those of the mid-70's period) ought to be considered as quintessential viewing for genre admirers. Even this forgotten and sadly obscure gem, which obviously suffers from terribly poor production values, is actually a very important horror film for two specific reasons. First of all, "The Flesh and Blood Show" represents Pete Walker's transition from banal sex comedies into mature and rudimentary horror. "Die Screaming Marianne", released one year before, already contained some admirable horror aspects, but Walker only managed to truly capture the horrific themes of murder and insanity in this film. The second and even more important reason to establish the essence of this film is that it's actually a pioneer of slasher-movies! Alongside Mario Bava's "Bay of Blood" and perhaps a few notable other titles, "The Flesh and Blood Show" was one of the first film to introduce a maniacal killer amidst a group of defenseless victims. The film is, in fact, pretty similar to "Bay of Blood" and it easily could have been named "Pier of Blood". A group of ambitious young actors and their director gather in an abandoned theater, located in an even more abandoned seaside village, to rehearse a play that'll hopefully launch them at prominent theaters in London. Shortly after their arrival, it becomes clear that the old theater and its dark catacombs also homes a sardonic killer and the players begin to vanish one by one. To reveal the killer's identity, the remaining survivors will have to dig up the theaters' dubious history... The search for the killer is very compelling and, thanks to the dark & ominous setting, the film simply oozes with suspense. The script features some very effective red herrings and the denouement is satisfying and even plausible! The murders are regretfully tame and unclear but, as said before, this is merely due to the inferior production values. No worries, as Walker will largely make up for the lack of carnage in his later films. His past career as a sleaze filmmaker, however, is more than obviously detectable here! There's tons of nudity in "The Flesh and Blood Show" and, albeit completely irrelevant to the plot, all the ladies have impressively ravishing curves! Decent movie, well worth adding to your horror collection.