More like The Bland and Boring Show if you ask me!  The Sci-Fi channel has a rule for their made for TV movies that, regardless of what happens, the monster has to be shown on the screen every eight minutes.  While I think this is limiting for the director’s artistic vision, especially if the director wants to build up some sort of suspense, I can see the logic to it.  Like, if a rule like that were applied to The Flesh and Blood Show, it might not have been such a snoozer.

Indeed both the salacious poster and trailer claim that the movie will offer up some tasty goodies in the form of naked nubile actresses and lots of gore.  Well it certainly has one of those things.  But, if director Peter Walker was intending to just make a piece of Eurotrash ertoica, he could have been a bit more up front about it.

Instead, we get so much promise and so little payoff, it’s a wonder why the director bothered with the film in the first place.  Did he really just want an excuse to film naked flesh?  The very opening scene is two ladies (lesbians?) sleeping in bed, one getting up completely naked (because women with big boobs forget to put on clothes) to check the door and finds a man who has been STABBED IN THE STOMACH… only he wasn’t actually stabbed and was just playing a prank.  By the way the woman is still naked during all of this.

Apparently this movie has a plot; something about a group of actors and actresses going to an old theater to rehearse a play called (you guessed it) The Flesh and Blood Show.  During the course of their rehearsals, some mad man picks off one actor and/or actress after another.  Or rather that is what is supposed to happen.  Instead we get long, drawn out dialogue sequences, a lot of people hanging in various locales (dining room of some house, out on the pier where the theater is, etc.) talking to each other about god knows what.  Occasionally a new actor/character will be introduced into the story and not add or take anything away.  You would think the more characters, the more kills but this movie is supposedly a “thriller” rather than a “slasher” and thrillers are the ones that are supposed to build up the suspense and not just offer up a bunch of violent kills facilitated by stupid characters who make bad decisions (makes jerk off motion with hand).

I gave the movie two iron crosses so there must be a reason other than the hot women who are often disrobed.  The first of those reasons is that, in spite nearly nothing happening, the movie takes place in an old grand guignol style theater with some old torture props lying around and thus kinda looks cool and the other reason is that one of the victims gets her head put on a plaque within the first 20 minutes.  The only problem is that kind of stuff doesn’t keep happening.  Another woman gets stabbed but, by that time, I stopped caring.

Also, I have absolutely no desire to recall any of the actual actors since their acting can be described as serviceable at best.  Even the old man charcter is just, ya know, meh.  Typically I let others crow about the whole “male gaze” concept but, in this case, I can’t help but think there were some noticeably gratuitous shots of some of these ladies such as this:

and this:

In that second one, she was sleeping like that in the theater.  Why?  I dunno, maybe they’re hippie free spirits or something.  Or maybe Peter Walker wanted to a chance to frame this shot and do as many takes as possible.  Anyway, unless you like what I described above, I’d highly suggest skipping this movie.