MovieChat Forums > Charlie's Angels (2019) Discussion > BORDERLINE ROTTEN on RT!!!

BORDERLINE ROTTEN on RT!!!

posted 5 years ago by ReelReviews14 (1220)
17 replies | jump to latest

People are saying this is "doing surprising well" on RT and getting "good reviews". No, it's not!

I just checked. The film is close to 59% at RT and is a borderline Rotten film by the score. True, it SHOULD gotten a much WORSE response and gotten even more scathing reviews than Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle from 2003, but at least we can take comfort in the fact that the film is being acknowledged as trash.

I'm reminded of Man of Steel, it was also garbage and Certified Rotten on RT. Except in that case, the MOS fanboys and Nolanites claimed the critics "Got it wrong" instead of the truth that it deserved to be Certified Rotten, its just that the critics weren't nearly harsh enough on the movie and too many gave it faint praise.

59% is undoubtedly a rotten score. If you got 59% of the answers correct on a pop quiz in school, you'd be looking at a big fat F for your overall score.

[–] ReelReviews14 (1220) 5 years ago

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/charlies_angels_2019/reviews?sort=rotten

[–] TheArgentinian (7109) 5 years ago

Why do you link to the rotten reviews? Agenda much?

It's 60% now and audience is 80%

[–] LLOwens (983) 5 years ago

Funny how many on this board think Rotten Tomato scores are written in stone when they are clearly not--they can go up or down based on what the critics/moviegoers rate this film, which like you mentioned is currently 60% (Certified Fresh): https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/charlies_angels_2019

[–] ReelReviews14 (1220) 5 years ago

It is now at 57%, so the film is officially ROTTEN again on RT. Hopefully it will stay that way this time!

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8759) 5 years ago

I am happy to see this film failing, but to be fair, it has shifted back and forth between rotten and fresh multiple times over the past two days.

I see that it's sitting at a 58% right now but the last I looked it was 62%. So I don't think we'll know the true score until it stabilizes after the weekend.

It's no critical darling though. Whether it ends up red or green, the critical response is tepid either way.

[–] bobbydallas (8556) 5 years ago

i literally would've been more welcoming of this film had it not been called "Charlie's Angels"

if it was a random spy flick i'd be on board. but the fact it's the 456th remake is exhausting. get some fresh ideas hollywood.. fml

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Currently on IMDb it is a 4.4 which would put in the 44% zone. I am happy to see it fail, the women don't look capable and are unattractive. I am also really over the Woke/girlpower/SJW crap. Not that the studio's will learn anything from this, standby for another reboot/remake in a couple of years.

[–] RogueDemonHunter (2684) 5 years ago

Wow. It must be bad if even RT is not running woke protection for it...

[–] charliekelly (1018) 5 years ago

Exactly. That's when you know it's really bad.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

'Woke Protection' on RT costs money, the marketing budget is all tapped-out.

[–] LLOwens (983) 5 years ago

To be fair, it's one percentage point (59%) away from a fresh RT rating (60%). In other words, one more positive critics review and it will be fresh again.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 5 years ago

Says the Kristen strokoligist.

[–] LLOwens (983) 5 years ago

Regardless of whether I'm a fan or not, the facts show, in this case, that the RT score for Charlie's Angels is currently 60% (Fresh status):https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/charlies_angels_2019

[–] ReelReviews14 (1220) 5 years ago

Ummm, actually the way it works is a film must attain a score of OVER 80% to be "Certified Fresh" on RT. For example, the film The Irishman is Certified Fresh with a rock solid 96% positive score. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_irishman

The score may fluctuate up and down a bit, but this highly divisive box office failure Charlie's Angels will NEVER get close to 80% and will NEVER get "Certified Fresh", and you know it.

60% positive = FAIL

[–] LLOwens (983) 5 years ago

Thanks for correcting me on mistakenly saying Charlie's Angels is "Certified Fresh", when in actuality 60% is "Fresh" status according to Rotten Tomatoes and made the correction in my previous post: rottentomatoes.com/about Here it also lists the requirements for a film to be considered "Certified Fresh". If there's any consolation, at least CA doesn't have a "Rotten" status as we speak.

By the same token, there is no such thing as "Certified Rotten" as you mentioned in your original post, so I felt the need to clarify this as well, so perhaps you can make the needed correction in the title to your OP.

[–] ReelReviews14 (1220) 5 years ago

Fair enough, will do.

[–] ReelReviews14 (1220) 5 years ago

It is back to being ROTTEN again. In fact, it has now fallen to 54%. :-)