motor89 Reviews

The Omen (2006)

Competent, but ultimately unnecessary remake

[6/10 · 28 January 2007]

The good point: you will not reach the end of this film and feel ripped off. It is a competent and well made production.

You will, though, reach the end of the film and think: why did they bother to remake it? It tells exactly the same story, in exactly the same way. The actors do a reasonable job (with the exception of Mia Farrow who was miscast and rather poor). The writing is essentially a copy of the original with some very minor alterations.

It is a decent film with little or no reason to exist. The original had Gregory Peck, Billie Whitelaw, Leo McKern, Patrick Troughton, David Warner etc... all of whom added considerable class and creepiness. This 2006 remake has a group of actors who do creditable jobs, but just don't quite make match up to the level set by the original cast.

So yes... not a bad film by any means, but nothing special. Watch the original.

Masters of Horror (2005–2007)

Hit and miss

[5 February 2006]

Masters of Horror... a self-regarding title that begs to be questioned...but hey, hubris has never been in short supply on television. It's a Showtime TV series in which each episode is a self-contained horror short-film made a "master of horror" -- sans any corporate/TV exec interference.

So is it success? Well... yes and no.

"Incident on and Off a Mountain Road" - a fairly non-descript slasher flick.

"Dreams in the Witch-House" - a fine H. P. Lovecraft adaptation.

"Dance of the Dead" - noisy, incoherent and stupid.

"Jenifer" - creepy and disturbing in places.

"Chocolate" - never really rises above mediocre

"Homecoming" - Dull. Social/political commentary is fine, but at least do it with some style and intelligence.

"Deer Woman" - dull and ridiculous.

"John Carpenter's Cigarette Burns" - the best thing John Carpenter has done for years. It has faults, but it still manages to be both disturbing and intriguing.

"The Fair-Haired Child" - passable, but forgettable.

"Sick Girl" - worst episode by far. The word "risible" doesn't even begin to plumb the depths of its awfulness.

"Pick Me Up" - passable.

"Haeckel's Tale" - my pick for most disappointing. It begins extremely stylishly and builds up a lot of tension... but is a spectacular misfire at the end.

Hellraiser: Deader (2005 Video)

Not a bad film... but not a Hellraiser film.

[18 December 2005]

A female journalist (Kari Wuhrer) investigates a cult called "Deaders" and gradually finds herself drawn into contact with Pinhead.

It is a surprisingly classy looking film. It's well acted (for the most part) and beautifully shot -- thanks in part to a lot of British actors and East-European talent... the quality of which would break the budget of anything shot in Hollywood.

As long as you don't expect "Hellraiser", you won't be too disappointed. The ending doesn't make a lot of sense and it's all a bit of an anti-climax. However, it makes for a diverting experience -- and it's light-years better than dreadful "Hellraiser: Hellworld".

The Thick of It (2005–2012)

Calling this sharp and funny just doesn't do it justice.

[3 November 2005]

Calling this sharp and funny just doesn't do it justice. It's a bit of a cliché to describe it as "Yes Minister" for the 21st century, but it does fit rather well.

Any British person who has followed the news over the last few years will be painfully familiar with "spin" as practised by the current government of the United Kingdom. Where "Yes Minister" dealt with hapless ministers being manipulated by the civil-service mandarins (the power brokers of the time) ... "The Thick Of It" deals primarily with hapless ministers being manipulated by spin doctors (the current power brokers). Spot the difference?

Series one kicks off with the clinical execution of a cabinet minister (department of "Social Affairs") by the party communications director Malcolm Tucker, played to perfection by a fantastically high-powered and abusive Peter Capaldi. In comes the completely ineffectual Hugh Abbott (Chris Langham) as his replacement -- the most recent in a long line we are led to believe -- and off we go. It's a picture of near-total ineptitude. The business of government is to please the media, all the time under the baleful gaze of Tucker and his team of ferocious Rottweilers, and of course the 24 hour gaze of the media... forever on the lookout for stories. Useless empty policy statements, petty oneupmanship, and doing anything to please "Number 10", or the Chancellor at "Number 11" -- or rather not, since pleasing one side can bring down the wrath of the other as you are obviously part of a plot to undermine them. No, it's best just to churn out focus grouped policies that are bland enough not to upset anyone, all the while dreaming of advancement to departments that matter.

It's all desperately funny and insightful. There are no bad performances. Series one and two combined add up to just six half-hour episodes in total. That may surprise Americans used to much longer runs... but when it's this funny and insightful, you are just glad it exists at all.

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider - The Cradle of Life (2003)

Not as powerfully awful as the first film, but that's about the best you can say.

[3/10 · 26 October 2005]

The first Lara Croft film was a gigantic mess. The follow-up, directed by Jan De Bont (Twister), isn't as bad... and that's about the best thing you can say about it.

It has the problem common to all video game adaptations: In a video game, the story is a hair-thin device to get to all the interactive action. Who cares if its preposterous nonsense, as long as the game itself is fun and playable? Film, on the other hand, has no interaction. It relies entirely on hooking the audience with characters and plots.

So... a film adaptation of a video game will almost certainly be an empty affair unless the script-writer fills it out somewhat... but of course, that's usually verboten. The copyright holders don't like it, and the fans don't like it. The result: empty unwatchable rubbish.

Which brings me to the pompously named Lara Croft II: The Cradle of Life. It tries hard to be an action film, but fails because its action scenes aren't all that well done (despite some decent stunts). It has no drama -- except for one moment near the end where, quite unexpectedly, the script develops a soul and Lara makes a difficult choice.

The story revolves around the race to find (as you probably guessed from the title) "The Cradle of Life" before the baddies get hold of it and use it to take over the world. Yes, its a lame rip-off of 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' with a hot-chick in the lead role, but then so was the video game. But Jon De Bont is not Spielberg and Angelina Jolie, for all her hotness, isn't as nearly as watchable as Harrison Ford.

If "not as bad as the first film" is enough recommendation for you to see it, then go for it... but otherwise I'd avoid paying to see it. It might provide a mild diversion on a rainy day when its shown on TV.

The Pentagon Wars (1998 TV Movie)

Life in any large organisation -- taken to the extremes that only the military can manage

[8/10 · 23 August 2005]

As an adaptation from Lt. Col. James G. Burton's 1993 book of the same name, 'The Pentaton Wars' dramatises the ludicrous time/money wasting going on in the many Pentagon weapons programmes during the cold war.

The film focuses on the development of the M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Burton (an U.S. Air Force Lt. Col played by Cary Elwes) is appointed, by Congress, to test and evaluate the vehicle that has been under development by the U.S. Army for 17 years at a cost of $14 billion. The press has caught onto the astonishing waste and incompetence, and pressure is applied to prove that the whole thing isn't just throwing away vast quantities of money. Politicians, sensitive to the press coverage, begin to insist that some of these weapons programmes actually go into production, rather than just sitting around on the drawing board and testing grounds.

The General in charge of the programme (played by Kelsey Grammar) is superficially friendly and cooperative to Burton, but his main aim is to stall and divert him into doing nothing to interfere with the gravy train -- just as so many previous appointees have avoided doing in the past, to the benefit of their careers. No-one wants to sabotage a hugely lucrative programme and find themselves ostracised.

Burton, though, has other ideas. After observing a deeply flawed test of the vehicle he begins to dig deeper. He looks into the history of the programme and finds designers being constantly asked to redesign it to fit in with ever shifting fads. The vehicle started out as a troop carrier, until one General realised he could chop a big chunk out of his budget by merging his "scout" project with it -- meaning it now had to have guns, a turret, detection equipment and be twice as fast (meaning it carries half as many people with less armour to protect them)... and so on. At one point, another General even suggests making it amphibious. After the 17 years of this, the end result is a hideous mongrel that can't perform any role particularly well.

Burton's investigations into the testing methods of the programme are no more encouraging. The "successful" tests performed on the armour are supposed to have been done with Soviet weaponry, but were actually done with Romanian RPGs that can't even blast through a metal door ("Romania is part of the Soviet-block" is the excuse). Other tests of its resistance to fire after being hit are done when the gunpowder in the carried ammo is replaced by sand, and the fuel tank is either empty or full of water. A British Army report into the type of aluminium used for the vehicle (when hit by a shell it burns and releases a toxic gas) is buried. Burton's attempts to run his own tests are constantly undermined and sabotaged. In one of the film's finest moments, Burton's idea to use sheep to test what would happen to a crew when hit by an RPG is blocked by the General setting up an ENTIRE NEW DEPARTMENT called "Ruminant procurement", thereby ensuring it will take 8 months for Burton's spec to be examined (type of sheep, length of coat, gender etc etc) and a further 8 months to actually procure them. Meanwhile, the under-pressure General is forcing the vehicle into production despite its manifest failings.

The whole thing is played for laughs... there was no other way to treat it really. I haven't read the original book (but I will now), so I can't say how faithful it is, but it's a very smart and funny film. Anyone who has worked in a large organisation will be familiar with the goings-on... but only colossally budgeted ones like the military can take it to such comedic extremes.

The Prince, the Showgirl and Me (2004 TV Movie)

An interesting, explicit and very personal look at film production

[8/10 · 11 August 2005]

This is not a documentary in the sense of a serious journalistic investigation. It is a reading, along with archive footage and photos, of a young man's diary written while working on a famous motion picture: "The Prince and the Showgirl" (1957), starring Laurence Olivier and Marilyn Monroe.

Colin Clark was a minor part of the production (3rd Assistant Director), and this is his personal (as befits a diary) record of what went on. Written in the language and style expected of a 1950s upper-class Englishman, the diary is quaint and diffident towards its subjects, but in other parts it pulls no punches.

Although clearly an admirer of Olivier, Clark doesn't whitewash his stern and often condescending attitude towards Monroe. According to Clark, Laurence Olivier agreed to do the film in order to revitalise himself by working with a new young "hot" actress -- but far from revitalising him, the demands of Monroe and her erratic behaviour wore him down.

Monroe (who part-funded the film) had just married Arthur Miller -- a man described in the diary as crude, arrogant and unpleasant, and with little respect for his new wife. Considering her difficult behaviour (lateness, problems remembering her lines) the diary is quite kind to Monroe. It paints a picture of a wounded and lost girl forever chased by a baying press and with little genuine emotional support. It also leaves the viewer/reader with an unpleasant view of Monroe's acting coach and "minder" Paula Strasberg (wife of "Method" acting guru Lee)... a women who, if we believe Clark's diary, was a truly dreadful sycophant.

At one hour long, this is an interesting, explicit and very personal look at film production and the scene surrounding it in Britain during the 1950s.

Epoch (2001 TV Movie)

A frustrating film

[5/10 · 8 May 2005]

Epoch starts out reasonably well... even if it's not very original. An alien artifact -- a strange twisted rock-like formation -- suddenly appears in the remote country of Bhutan and the Americans and Chinese race to reach it. The Americans win and begin to explore it.

The problems for the film begin toward the end. It starts to become really stupid. There are interesting narrative threads that are just forgotten about, and people start to do moronic things for no apparent reason. I'm reading between the lines here (I haven't seen the original script so I just don't know), but there seemed to be a theme of life/death/rebirth/pregnancy and how it links with the object (particularly considering the strange Bhutan child and the final scene) but only traces remain the film. Of course, it may just have been a poorly written story... or it may have been butchered later. It does seem as though large chunks of the script were ditched in order to shorten the running time.

The film is entertaining at the start but hugely disappointing at the end. It leaves you feeling annoyed at the wasted opportunity.

Queen of the Damned (2002)

Legendarily bad

[6 May 2004]

I liked Interview With The Vampire. A film like that can so easily go wrong, but Pitt, Cruise and Neil Jordan steered it through a minefield and produced an interesting interpretation of long-lived loneliness. Its sequel Queen of the Damned, on the other hand, is a dreadful mess. Where to start?

The acting: uniformly appalling. Aaliyah was almost fun to watch being so over the top, but there was no mystery or fear. She wasn't alluring or scary, as you'd expect from such a character... she was just ridiculous. Townsend as Lestat was limp and dull. The accents: Akasha is Egyptian -- so why does she have an East European accent? Cheesy dialogue, ludicrous plot-holes and poor special effects all contribute to a comic book-style superhero/supervillian battle between vampires.

It is dreadful. They should've played it for laughs.... it might have worked. They didn't even have the good sense to throw in lots of eroticism (which I would've thought is an essential part of any vampire story), or even just lashings of gratuitous nudity to save it.

Larger Than Life (1996)

Inoffensive and mildly amusing

[11 January 2004]

The story of 'Larger Than Life' is a by-the-numbers buddy/road affair with an elephant, and as such there is little to recommend it. What it does have, however, is Bill Murray. He makes even the most uninspired material funny -- even when he's not really trying as here.

'Larger Than Life' does have its funny moments (Murray's spoof of motivational speakers stands out), and it is worth sitting through a TV showing of it. All in all, it's not much more than an inoffensive family comedy.

The World at War (1973–1974)

Unmissable

[13 September 2003]

Even thirty years later this documentary has lost none of its power. Quite the opposite. It serves as a superb introduction, for those born after WWII, to an enormous conflict that radically re-shaped the world around us and subjected our grandparents/parents to dreadful hardship.

The series begins slowly, with an episode on Hitler's and the Nazi party's rise to power. It does skip a great deal of material on the origins and growth of National Socialism... but I suppose that is only to be expected. Despite being an epic thirty-two hours in length there is only so much time, and much material not directly about the war had to be skipped.

It is a fine antidote to the drivel put out by film studios... which, for the most part, show the war being almost entirely fought by the U.S.A, with the British involved in a few skirmishes here and there. Little do they realise the scale of British fighting and loss. Perhaps even more importantly it gives coverage of one of the most undervalued (particularly by Commie-bashing Hollywood) that Russia suffered more losses than any other country in WWII. Without their sacrifice it would have been a different outcome.

I can't stress enough how good this series is. From the title sequence with its stirring Carl Davis music and arresting images to the well-written and perfectly judged narration, it has the lot. If you get the chance to see it -- whether on DVD, or just a TV repeat -- do not miss it.

Zoolander (2001)

It has its moments

[28 May 2003]

Zoolander isn't really a film it is a bunch of sketches stitched together, and it shows in both the short running time and extreme stretching of some jokes. There is a moment in the film when you think that it's going to hit its target hard -- child labour and how the fashion industry exploits it to manufacture incredibly cheap clothing and then sell at obscene prices -- but then it backs off and goes for the cheap gags instead. Models are stupid, pampered and vain... yeah, tell us something we don't know. That's not to say there aren't lots of funny moments in it (Derek and Hansel faced with getting info out of a computer is brilliant), but when you add it all up you are left with... not much.

Maybe it is because the world of fashion and modelling is a ripe target for spoofing? It's just too damned easy to rip on the vacuous and shallow -- and what's worse, the fashion industry is, by its nature, an attention whore. It wants you to watch for whatever reason. So any barbs sent their way are just laughed off and turned into more publicity for them, and the whole thing just seems to celebrate instead of excoriate. Or maybe that's what Stiller wanted all along.

Watergate (I) (1994)

Compelling

[27 March 2003]

A magnificent, detailed and utterly compelling documentary split into 5x50 minute parts. It builds from the origins of the burglary on the Watergate and the reasons for it... into the final moments of Nixon's presidency when the net finally closes on him. Despite the complexity and huge amount of information delivered, the programme never loses the plot and does a great job of putting across the excitement as Nixon is brought down.

This is a must see for anyone with the slightest interest in this fascinating period of history.

The Legend of Sleepy Hollow (1999 TV Movie)

Sloooow

[25 January 2003]

This isn't a bad version of "The Legend Of Sleepy Hollow." -- it does, however, suffer from being stretched into a 90min movie.

Large parts of the production drag until you are grinding your teeth waiting for something to happen... with no real pay off at the end. Had they made this as a 45 minute short, it may well have worked. Decent enough acting, and probably worth a watch if nothing else is on.

Fight Club (1999)

Brutal, funny, brilliant and though-provoking.

[22 December 2002]

Ok, the idea that men are becoming emasculated and dehumanised by a society that is increasingly women-oriented (shoppers, not hunters) is not new... nor is it particularly insightful. Fight Club, though, manages to take the idea and spin it into an amazing visual and philosophical kick in the teeth.

I've seen reviews calling the film sexist because it has no women characters in it, apart from Marla and she is hardly a good example of womenhood. Who cares? Not every film has to slavishly follow the PC line and include the requisite tough female. This is a film about men; their problems; their neuroses (and psychoses), and a particularly brutal way of putting into perspective the crap that, as men, they have to take every single day. And it is not as if the film is flattering to men -- Fight Club moves from being a way for the men to regain their individuality, and turns it into a cult before pulling the rug out from under the viewer completely with the twist. It's a brutal satire on everything from the junk peddled as culture in the West, to the absurd self-help/inner-child nonsense filling our televisions (adverts and programmes), to ridiculous hyper-macho behaviour.

As a film, Fight Club is a violent masterpiece with a lot of similarities to A Clockwork Orange, not least of which is the outrage it caused in certain over-sensitive reviewers. Watch it and enjoy the visceral (damn I wanted to avoid that word) show... watch it again for directorial flare from David Fincher... and then again for fine acting by both Norton and Pitt. It's excellent the first time you see it, and it just keeps getting better -- and that's the sign of a truly great film.

Go out and start a fight? Me? Nah... but Fight Club served as a reminder that I'm not just a consumer; a statistic, or a demographic.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Forget the cinema version

[10/10 · 17 November 2002]

I've waited until now to review The Fellowship of the Ring, even though I saw it last January at the cinema, because I wanted to review the real version... the so-called "extended version."

Well, I've just seen the real version -- and it is head and shoulders above the butchered version shown at the cinema. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the original release, but I couldn't shake the feeling that I watching a speeded up version. A version that rockets from battle to battle with little or no explanation or slow-down. I put this down to Peter Jackson trying to fit it all in and forgave it. Then I heard of the "extended version", with 30 minutes of extra footage chopped out of the original release... presumably because it would have bumped the viewing time up to an unmanagable (for mainstream picture houses) 3 and a half hours.

The longer version is a much, *much* better viewing experience. It takes its time to explain things... it paces itself, and you don't get the feeling that it is a dizzying ride between impressive fight sequences. The characters are fuller... Hobbiton is not just a place where Frodo starts out, it becomes a home with relatives and culture that Frodo wants to protect by leaving with the Ring. Most important of all: Lothlorien isn't just a stop off point and a light show, it now has a purpose and plot points that will be important in later films. Boromir is also a more fleshed-out character and not just a man who goes mad with desire for the Ring.

It's all a much more enjoyable experience. Forget about the cinema edit... the extended version isn't just some BS director's cut. It's how it was meant, and should, be seen.

Lifeforce (1985)

Sci-Fi B-movie in the eighties

[7/10 · 31 August 2002]

Ok, let's get this out of the way first: As a piece of cinema, Lifeforce is rubbish. As a bit of cheesy entertainment for SF buffs, it's got a lot of merit. If you enjoy watching those old black and white SF B-movies - giant mutated spiders/ant or alien monsters wandering around the desert - you really will get a kick out of Lifeforce.

Bad things: The story makes little sense and the acting is pretty poor. Good things: The special effects are halfway decent; it has a welcomingly different British centered story (it's set in London) which gives different feel to most SF movies; and it has the well-endowed Mathilda May (amusingly billed as "Space Girl") wandering around stark naked.

In short: it's fun.

I've seen it half a dozen times now, and every time it comes on TV I make time to watch it - admittedly this is partly to do with the naked Ms. May - but it's also to do with the enjoying a bit of unassuming and silly SF.

Viva Las Vegas (1964)

Whoa momma!

[16 August 2002]

Elvis films are usually... well... rubbish - but they are kind of fun in a cheesy way, and Viva Las Vegas is no different.

It's the same old story, Elvis as (insert glamorous profession here) sees beautiful girl, sings songs to her, wins her. The End.

The differences this time are that the songs are pretty good, and the girl is just *stunning* - Ann-Margaret was one seriously fine looking woman, and with a wicked look in her eye that marks her out from most of the other mannequins around at the time.

It's all enjoyably silly, and definitely worth a look.

The Hunger (1997–2000)

It represents the very worst of TV

[31 July 2002]

This one sentence sums up the TV series 'The Hunger':

Big budget softcore aimed at pseudo-intellectuals who cannot admit that they watch porn.

Imagine the worst excesses of mediocre film students: pretentious dialogue, fast cutting, jumping backwards and forwards through the story, endlessly repeating visuals and dialogue, blatant weird sex - and attach it to a generous TV budget. It's TV Hell for anyone with taste. Someone needs to grab hold of the directors and slap them... hard (on second thoughts, they'd probably film it as an episode, so forget it).

Do you think that crass and unsubtle plotting and dialogue linked to gratuitous sex makes interesting points about human nature? Are you deluded enough to think that throwing a camera around fast enough to induce epilepsy and hide the shoddy editing makes you a modern and talented director? If so, The Hunger is for you. Everyone else can go and rent some Playboy tapes - at least they get to the T&A quickly and don't make you feel seasick.

The Parlor (2001)

Brilliant

[23 July 2002]

I've just caught this short film on the SciFi channel in the UK. Very important: Don't read reviews of it (including this one beyond the first paragraph), they will undoubtedly give the game away and spoil the fun realisation at the end.

Spoiler warning.

This film is simply magnificent, if you have ever spent any time in a chat room it will have you smiling at the end. The real genius is in convincing you that it is some kind of group therapy session, and then maybe a role-playing therapy session. You simply cannot understand why one guy calls himself Beth and why a 50 year-old guy is sitting next to a 15 year old talking dirty - and why does the guy get thrown out by the police for swearing? And then at the end it all becomes clear... and you desperately want to see it again to pick up all the things you missed.

Simply brilliant. Don't spoil it for others by giving the game away though.

The Lone Gunmen (2001)

Cancelled... dammit!

[21 July 2002]

Amusing, enjoyable, interesting and doesn't insult the intelligence of the viewer? That makes it basically deadmeat as far as US TV executives are concerned. It's really depressing sometimes. We've finally got this ace show in the UK, and I come to IMDB to find out that it's been cancelled.

The Lone Gunmen is a spin-off from the X-Files - but don't let that put you off. This isn't the same kind of po-faced, labyrinthine nonsense that plagues the later years of the parent show. It's fun... and it's about a bunch of people who are individually very good at one thing, suck at everything else. Put them together as a group, and they somehow bungle their way through with amusing results.

It's class, and it's got characters you can identify with and like despite their flaws.

SpaceCamp (1986)

Wish fulfillment or stupid rubbish?

[6 May 2002]

I can forgive the enormous plot-holes and improbable scenario... it is a kids' film after all. The real problems are the dialog and actors - they are predictable, shoddy and charmless.

Kate Capshaw manages to be fantastically annoying along with Lea Thompson and Kelly Preston, not to mention the required (in modern films) irritating brat, Max played by Joaquin Phoenix.

A really appalling film.

2010 (1984)

Unfairly judged against 2001

[23 March 2002]

2010 has an enormous monkey on its back. 2001 is widely recognised as one of the most impressive cinematic achievements ever. How do you follow something like that?

Looking at some of the comments posted here, there is a definite refusal to judge the film on its own merits - shame. 2010 is not typical stupid Hollywood blockbuster or mindless action film. It is an intelligent follow-up which attempts to pick up where 2001 left off. However, having moaned about people comparing the two, I'm going to do just that! 2010 suffers in comparison in many ways. The special effects are not the same virtually timeless masterpieces from 2001 - they have already dated quite severely. But then 2010 had neither the budget, nor the time afforded to the obsessive Kubrick...

The film deserves better than to be written off as a lame 2001 cash-in. Its major fault is that it tries to be less obtuse than 2001. Perhaps they should have neglected to explain anything, and left the audience to endlessly analyse it and spout pseudo-intellectual drivel?

Twister (I) (1996)

I like Twister

[12 November 2001]

I get a lot of stick from friends for saying this, but: I really like Twister. I enjoy a good thoughtful film as much as the next stuck-up film snob, but I also love damned good action flicks.

Twister is a big dumb summer blockbuster with no pretensions whatsoever. I *like* the fact that the money is all up there on the screen - lots of tornadoes ripping apart farmhouses and throwing trucks around. I *like* that it's one long chase movie. I *like* looking at Helen Hunt's beautiful face. I saw Twister twice at the cinema, and at least three times since - and I've enjoyed it every single time. Can you get a better recommendation than that?

Twister will never satisfy some people... in particular, those who watch it, for some strange reason, expecting a cerebral masterpiece. Enjoy it for what it is: One of the best summer blockbusters ever.

Boltneck (2000)

Simple and fairly amusing in places

[21 October 2001]

It's not a film I would go out of my way to watch, but it's amusing on a boring Sunday afternoon (when I watched it). I was expecting some awful "teen" rubbish, but was pleasantly surprised. Enjoyably offbeat and dark in places, but it's mostly just unassuming comedy horror.