MOVIES

This Netflix Rom-Com Is A Critical Bomb

Some critics didn’t mind “Players,” with many calling it a decent offering that’s worth a watch if you’re in the mood for a modern romantic comedy. The New York Times was particularly enthusiastic about the film, with critic Alissa Wilkinson writing, “‘Players’ is an old-fashioned romantic comedy, which means you know the end from the start. That’s not a bug; it’s a feature, a well-deployed one in this case.” 

Seeing as it’s dominating Netflix, the film is definitely worth a watch for those who want to keep up-to-date with contemporary romantic comedies. But popularity doesn’t necessarily equate to positivity. Audiences are mostly mixed on “Players,” which focuses on Mack (Rodriguez) finally deciding that she’s ready for a relationship. It has a 51% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, meaning mixed-to-positive feedback. Over on the film social media site Letterboxd, the film boasts a 2.6 rating out of five. Dig deeper into the reviews and the general consensus from viewers seems to suggest that “Players” is just a middle-of-the-road fare that doesn’t offend. “Amusing; cheesy; light; predictable; watchable; well-cast,” wrote Letterboxd user joshrowley in a 3-star review. 

“Players” isn’t a romantic comedy classic, but it’s good enough Tuesday night viewing for those in the mood for something light. And for what it’s worth, Rodriguez, who also executive produces the film, is just excited to be part of a genre that doesn’t show any signs of stopping. “Well, I think rom-coms are timeless,” she told Bustle. “They last forever. We love them because we love to laugh and we love to cry.” Amen. 

Source link

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button

LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS LEOSS