[imagesource: Netflix]

When it comes to the end of another workday, the temptation to pop something mindless on the telly is strong.

There’s certainly no shortage of options on that front, and you might see Sexy Beasts when you log into Netflix this week.

In the new dating show, contestants will don cutting edge prosthetic makeup, putting “true blind-date chemistry to the test”.

At least that’s the premise the streaming giant is selling, but not everybody’s buying it.

Before we go any further, I’ll plonk the trailer here:

After watching that, would you be shocked to learn that the reviews have not been glowing?

To start, here’s The Telegraph, which gave it one star, focusing on the fact that underneath the prosthetics is a bunch of good-looking people:

How much more subversive would Sexy Beasts be were Emma to have rejected boy-band dead-ringer Adam only to discover charming mandrill man Bennett had a face like a monkey’s bum?

[Narrator Rob] Delaney’s droll voiceover meanwhile comes across as a dead-eyed Netflix simulacrum of Iain Stirling’s routine in Love Island. But then all the canned sarcasm in the world was never going to disguise the truth that, under its bizarre plumage, Sexy Beasts is just another tawdry reality show.

And that, far from a squawk on the wild side, it’s ultimately a bit of a bungle in the dating jungle.

The Guardian also went for the jugular, saying the show is “so screamingly awful, you’ll end up weeping into your sofa”:

After a nugatory attempt, the mind quails and halts, unwilling to go further. Thus, do I fight to explain the advent of this monstrosity into our lives.

At least that was a two-star review, despite the cutting remarks.

Finally, over at WIRED, Sexy Beasts is labelled “ridiculous” and “surprisingly boring”.

Is this going to stop you from choosing it, over all of those hard-hitting series on your watchlist, at the end of the day?

Probably not, but at least now you can go in with expectations set nice and low.

[sources:telegraph&guardian&wired]