666: A Besta

Devil child from the earlier film ('666 Bless the Child') is now all grown up and VP of a supposed multinational, but there's some seriously spicy tail seducing him in the office that he just can't resist. Predictably, temptation opens the gates of hell with his heavily pregnant wife in the crosshairs.

Filmed on location, apparently guerilla style in back alleys and side streets, there's an irritating warm orange glow on everything during the day, whilst after sunset you need night vision goggles to see what's going on. Some of the props look cool, and the aforementioned office vixen is an alluring specimen (well played by Albanian actress Grey), but the picture is so low budget it looks like a soft porn soap opera.

There's dirty dancing, a steamy infrared love scene, rooftop lesbian vampire orgy, even a bloody crucifixion and yet despite all these positives, 'The Beast' remains a tedious, talky, overblown fizzer that can't overcome its lack of resources and imagination.

It disturbs me to see the negative reviews of 666-The Beast. Okay, it was filmed in 6 days- that just adds to its glory.If these actors,producers, and director were given a Hollywood budget you would see genius unfold on film. This "B" film was far better than any recent big budget horror film easily. The devil's portrayal was the best I have ever seen. The anti-Christ was eerily believable as a self centered. ambition driven, corporate master who cheats on his wife and literally kills all competition.

The character of Father Deacon Creed was amazing. The actor portrayed the priest as a an academic who, despite having taken a vow of humbleness before God, can not help but flaunt his superior knowledge of the occult whenever the devil strikes. His accent is a great one and you truly believe that he is an extremely educated and driven agent of the Vatican.

The final, climactic scene is one of the best portrayals of the devil vs. the Catholic Church since the Exorcist. The actor portraying Donald really seems to become possessed as he fights an army of Catholic agents. The scene was incredibly acted and is one of the finest climaxes I have ever seen done in a "B" film.

IN conclusion, 666-the Best is NOT the joke which others claim it is. It was a dark, well written and superbly acted horror film. The writers, actors and directors did a LOT with little time and money. The fact that it invented its own theological theory about the second coming of Christ is a testament to the brilliance behind the writing and production of one of the bets end of days films I have ever seen.

The music occasionally has some broodiness, but that is nowhere near enough to save this film. Is it The Asylum's worst? No, that's a tie between 2012: Doomsday, Alien Origin and Titanic II. Is it also as bad as 2010: Moby Dick, Transmorphers, AVH: Alien vs Hunter, War of the Worlds 2 and Death Racers? Not quite, but that is saying very little. I found 666: The Beast cheap to look at, it is dully lit and has slipshod effects, but it was the camera work that really made it so. The shaky camera technique not only gave me a headache but it is also used far too much, and there are also too many shots of Alma Sarachi's bottom. The acting is bland with nobody that stands out, they don't connect with their characters and consequently we don't connect with them either. And no wonder as the characters are so clichéd and underdeveloped. 666: The Beast is a very poorly written as well, the dialogue is stilted and cheesily delivered while the story is sluggishly paced, incoherent and full of overlong exposition scenes and any suspenseful or "scary" scenes missing two vital ingredients to make them work, suspense and a genuine sense of horror. The direction is lazy also as well. Overall, The Asylum have done worse, but in all honesty that is saying little in 666: The Beast's favour. 2/10 Bethany Cox

Despite the fact of never having heard about this 2007 horror movie titled "666: The Beast" prior to watching it here in 2025, then I needed no persuasion to watch it. I am a big fan of all things horror, after all.

And when I saw that it was The Asylum that was behind this movie, I must admit that my expectations went from slim to none. The Asylum weren't exactly known for their stellar movies back in the day. But still, I opted to give director Nick Everhart's 2007 movie the benefit of the doubt, as every now and again The Asylum does hit the mark straight on.

I have to admit that I was expectation "666: The Beast" to be a mockbuster, since it was The Asylum that delivered the movie. I found out that this 2007 movie was the sequel to the 2006 movie "666: The Child", which was a mockbuster of the 2006 movie "The Omen". And while I haven't seen "666: The Child", I figured I was not missing out on any particular grand details in order to understand the narrative in this 2007 follow-up.

Writers Nick Everhart and Benjamin Henry put together a straightforward script, which ultimately proved rather dull and boring. There wasn't really much of anything interesting happening throughout the course of the 88 minutes that the movie ran for, nor anything scary. So it was a swing and a miss.

I was not familiar with a single actress or actor on the cast list, which was actually something that spoke in favor of the movie, as I enjoy watching unfamiliar talents on the screen. The acting performances in the movie were actually fair, despite the fact that the script was subpar.

My rating of director Nick Everhart's 2007 movie "666: The Beast" lands on a two out of ten stars.

This is probably one of the worst movies I have seen so far this year. Dull, boring, not-making-a-lot-of-sense... lots of holes in the plot and acting which I have seen better in school plays.. Actually I think I would prefer watching 'Bloodrayne' and 'Bloodrayne 2' again as opposed to this lame excuse of a movie. If you have never seen any movies in this genre (The Omen, Stigmata, Bless The Child and so on) - please - do not watch this one. It will make you run away from the genre... But OK - to be fair to this movie - I haven't seen the first one (666 The Child.. I think), but I do not feel any urge to see the first one. It probably could have been OK for a Sunday with a hangover if they had changed the script, the director and the actors...