Random thoughts



The Substream's Film Lab

Home » Reviews

Fool’s Gold: A Retrospective Movie Review

Submitted by on May 30, 2008 – 5:28 pmNo Comment

fools_gold_posterNow imagine for a second that you are Andy Tennant. Don’t know who he is? (You’re not alone. He is the man responsible for directing Hitch (starring Will Smith) and Sweet Home Alabama (starring ). So, you decide to cast a Scotsman, an Englishman and lots of Americans. You are then given the opportunity to assign believable nationalities for each of these characters. What do you do? Do you keep their current nationalities and work around it, or do you change most of their accents because it may just be a lot of fun? I can answer this question for you. If you were Andy Tennant, then you would make the Scotsman a Ukrainian, the Englishman an American and one of the Americans, an undefined nationality (I say undefined, because I’m not sure if Donald Sutherland was trying to do a posh American accent or a British one). Yes that’s right you’d try and make it interesting. In fact, what you truly get is a bunch of people talking to each in other in dialects that are laughable at the very least and inaudible at other times.

So you have started off on the wrong foot. No matter; it is possible to redeem yourself after a bad beginning (although I can’t think of a film that has messed up this badly and come back from it). You decide that for this sunken treasure hunt of a film, you hire two beautiful people then surround them by uglies (ugly people), so they look even better than they should do. You also involve yourself in the writing process, deciding that three screenwriters could tell a story so much better than two. Finally, you decide that despite the main characters actually being just divorced, all should be forgotten the second the wife is shown a dinner plate (yes, a dinner plate).

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to Fool’s Gold. A title hinting at the fact that this treasure hunt will turn into a morality lesson and not a hunt for actual gold. The title however is wrong. In fact, I’m still not sure who the actual “fool” is! Is it the audience for paying to watch this awful mess? It is a possibility that Andy “Grease 2” Tennant is sitting behind his desk purely aware of how awful the film was, yet not worrying about it whilst counting his share of the takings (no matter how small). Indeed, this film is a true to life treasure hunt, but the gold is our hard earned cash paying to see two glistening bodies, a Scotsman act like a Ukrainian, An Englishman act like a yank and a few American act like tw*ts (maybe they’re the fools).

The chemistry that was so prevalent for our main stars Hudson and McConaughey in “How to lose a guy in ten days” has been all but lost. Gone is the flirting, , playful behaviour of the past film and in comes the search for the gold. In fact, this film was as much fun as watching a gold prospector search for the yellow stuff. At least (if you are waiting for the prospector) at the end of the longest wait of your life, you get the opportunity (if you so wish) to smack the bearded fellow over the head and swipe the newly found loot. In this though, the most you can do is drop your half-eaten box of popcorn in the aisles of the theater, to subtly let the manager know that this film was below par. You do that if you’re a typically polite British citizen. However, if you are a nation known for saying how it is, you take said manager and plunge his head through the screen repeating the words: “If you ever charge me to watch tat like that again, I will see to it that your testicles are suddenly evicted from your body”. (Don’t be doing this. Just drop the popcorn like a respectable member of the community and walk out unfulfilled. In fact, watch your partner. They I imagine, have much more practice in hinting their lack of fulfilment in any give situation with a correctly timed sigh.

Throughout this faked orgasm of a film, there are continuous references to how good McConaughey is in bed. I am confused. Is it in his contract that all members of the cast should discuss his prowess in bed? If this is the case, the Mr McConaughey is a very insecure individual. However, insecurity is a terrible thing and I always like to lend a hand, so for those who have read this far: MR McCONAUGHEY IS A FANTASTIC LOVER (ALLEGEDLY)!

At the beginning of the film, you get a small amount of text that attempts to explain the overly-complicated story of a sunken treasure to you. The is, we just don’t care. We know there is a sunken treasure. We do not need to read about it. In fact, we don’t need the excessively bulky exposition of the Spanish gold that sank etc. We need to know three things:

That Matthew McConaughey’s character is a sexual dynamo (don’t forget now)

That Hudson and McConaughey are divorced

That there is a sunken treasure waiting to be found

What is so difficult about that? Another thing that bugs me (there are a few things), is the fact that the film doesn’t decide about its audience. Is the film made for kids (too violent) or is it made for men (not enough action). We have to assume then, that this film is meant for women (being very stereotypical here to make a point; bear with me). That being the case, there is not enough romance in it either. Undecided about the audience, it ambles along carefree getting to an ending that everyone knew was going to happen before sitting down!

The film sells itself like a sequel to Sahara and yet fails even more than that to impress. This has nowhere near the excitement factor of Sahara (that wasn’t much). I do hope I’m getting through to you all. This film was bad. Watch it as if it is bad, and you may enjoy it. Watch it thinking that it stars two people who were great in “How to lose a guy in ten days” and you will be sorely disappointed. In fact, if you go and watch the film, I challenge you to spot as many mistakes as I did. I am not one of these geeks, who waste my life seeking out mistakes in films, but this film was so much of a distraction, I couldn’t help it.

Rating: 1.5 out of 5

Comments are closed.