Watch it at Amazon
120 out of 151 people found the following review useful: Cure for Seasonal Affective Disorder, 9 February 2008 Author: Emily Taylor from Utah
For the life of me, I cannot figure out why this movie is getting as lousy reviews as it is. I walked out of the theatre quite pleased; even if this movie will not get an Oscar, it earned the price of my ticket. It's campy, silly, and bright, and there is nothing like a fluffy romp around the sunny islands to cure those winter blues.Admittedly, it's a contrived, predictable mystery, but that proves to be the focus rather than the romantic comedy that was promoted. But in the spirit of Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys, it's a spunky predictable mystery. No, the characters were not all complex, but at least the powers that be went to the trouble of making them entertaining and personable.I liked the idea of looking for sunken treasure. I liked the upbeat island soundtrack. I liked the funny characters. I liked the pretty scenes and the silly lines. I liked the random explosions and fight scenes, as pleasantly ridiculous as they were.Kate and Matthew have the chemistry they had in "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days". They have the sunny dispositions to pull off a mindless-but-fun storyline and to work with a wacky cast.It's mind candy in all its fluffy goodness.
96 out of 135 people found the following review useful: Not as horrible as everyone says, 9 February 2008 Author: Lark_Pash from United States
I found this film "cute" and "silly". Don't go to it and expect the best film of the year, but rather something fun to watch during a date. I went and saw this last night with a friend who did not want to see it...at all. In the end he said he did enjoy it after all.There is a little bit of a "Dupree" feeling towards the character Finn who is irresponsible and far from mature. His character is charming in a goofy way. He seems to mess everything up, but somehow in the end it all work out.I did not care too much for the character Gemma, but nonetheless I laughed at her idiotic comments because I have met people as naive as her. She's basically a miniature Paris Hilton at sea who knows nothing about the sea.I wouldn't describe this movie as thrilling, but it was entertaining. The comedy is shallow here and there. However, there are some incidents that will make you laugh and laugh. If you want to see a light hearted film that'll make you smile and giggle then I'd recommend seeing this.
70 out of 108 people found the following review useful: Disappointing and irritating., 9 February 2008 Author: bond_girl_0076 from United States
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This movie was unbelievably disappointing, after the great chemistry and comedic timing of Hudson and McCounaghy in "How To Lose a Guy in Ten Days", I expected something at least marginally as funny or cute. The writing and the dialogue were insipid. Scenes which should have been hysterical were instead so poorly timed that it left me scratching my head. This movie was in dire need of some ruthless editing; for instance, the scene where Hudson and McCounaghy are explaining the history of the shipwrecked Aurelia to Sutherland. That was some of the most boring, long-winded, convoluted dialog I've ever heard in a so-called adventure movie, and it went on for several minutes. The entire scene should have been cut.The comedic timing was off...way off. For instance, the scene where Hudson tells the Gemma character, "There are other ways of getting attention besides acting like a bimbo," and then there is an awkwardly long pause before the "Ukrainian Sidekick" character says, "Like what?" This scene is followed by another awkwardly long pause where the characters stare at each other; presumably this is to allow the audience time to laugh at this "brilliant" piece of wit.And why in the name of all that is holy did the writer feel the need to introduce the Gemma Honeycutt character to this story? I felt like the writer was trying so hard to tell the audience, "This character is supposed to be stupid, do you get it everyone? This character is stupid," I felt like saying, "We get it, already. She's an idiot." The writer, in trying to convey that Gemma is a moron, underestimated the intelligence of the entire audience. The character was so annoying that I literally wanted to punch her. Anyone who claims that the character was realistic because they have, in fact, met people that stupid needs to seriously re-evaluate their associates.I felt like this movie was a complete waste of my money, and I lament that I paid the premium price for the ticket instead of going to the matinée. Not that I think the movie was even worth $6.50.I don't blame the actors, since I've seen Hudson and McCounaghy in movies that I really enjoyed, where I thought they were top-notch. I blame the writing and the directing. A major overhaul of both would have saved this movie.Obviously this movie was supposed to be light and fluffy, and I certainly don't expect "light and fluffy" movies to be Oscar-worthy. But I do expect them to be entertaining. Look at movies like "Romancing the Stone", and "You've Got Mail." Sure, they're fluffy, but they're not retarded. They're entertaining movies that reasonably intelligent people can sit back on the couch and enjoy with a glass of wine and a plate of lasagna on a Sunday night, and not feel like they've just sacrificed several hundred brain cells."Fool's Gold" was not even entertaining, and to me, that's it's biggest flaw.
66 out of 112 people found the following review useful: A Confused Movie..., 13 February 2008 Author: Jay Addison from United States
Fool's Gold's biggest problem comes in the form of confusion. While employing two game lead actors, one notorious for making bad films sellable (that's you Matt!), neither Ms. Hudson or Mr. McConaughey could save this film that can't seem to decide whether it's a comedy or an action film.When an estranged couple meet mere hours after their divorce on board a privately owned super-yacht (she's working, he's slumming), their romance is instantly rekindled by a new clue into the treasure that has been their goal for years. Once they recruit the stupid and rich boat-owners, nothing's left but to be inspired by random things to each new unbelievable clue along the way.Kate Hudson positively glows on-screen here, but that radiance doesn't resonate with the rest of the film. Fool's Gold delivers very few laughs, relying mostly on slapstick and a dumb-girl character. And the whole plot doesn't even work that well. Many subplots that are put in place are never completed, and the dialogue doesn't go over well. All in all, this wasn't even a good romantic comedy OR an action movie- largely because it wouldn't commit to either genre mixing both elements unsuccessfully. Skip this one... 4/10 stars.Jay Addison
19 out of 27 people found the following review useful: Entertaining, especially those accents!, 15 June 2008 Author: k-forshami from United Kingdom
Fools Gold is exactly how you would expect it to be. We have all heard the story before in SAHARA and dare I say it, Into the Blue, although this movie is obviously a comedy/adventure.As for the story's strength and the actors performances, again, it's exactly what you would expect. McConaughey, Hudson and the other supporting characters deliver more than adequate performances and Donald Sutherland is as brilliant as he can be considering the overall quality of this movie.Last but not least, pay attention to the accents, It seems like everybody has a fake (funny fake) accent. I'm not sure why they chose to fake the accents when everybody does a terrible job, but hey.. I guess it makes the movie even more entertaining.Definitely watchable
21 out of 34 people found the following review useful: Nice break from winter blue's, 17 February 2008 Author: peterweb-1 from United States
My expectations for this movie were very low going in, and I would say that the movie met them. I expected a fun, exotic, exciting adventure, which the movie delivered upon. It is a fairly predictable movie, but always fun to watch Mathew McConaughey play the guy who hasn't grown up along with Kate Hudson playing the lady who wishes he would. Their chemistry is great, and isn't that all you really expect from a movie like this, regardless of plot?The only thing that didn't fit in the movie was a couple of overly bloody scenes (on an absolute basis the blood was very minor, but the fact that they showed up at all was surprising.)Not the best movie you will ever see, but will certainly give you a break from all this extreme winter weather we have been having.
7 out of 9 people found the following review useful: Fools Gold is worth seeing if you want silly humour, romance with a bit of action on the side.., 20 April 2008 Author: jumanapearl from United Kingdom
I've just been to see Fool's Gold last night at the cinema and although there have been mixed reviews on this I have to say I really liked it. The plot is somewhat basic hunky man and gorgeous woman goes searching for lost treasure at the bottom of the ocean, throw in a couple of minor characters (one of them a very rich millionaire played by Donald Sutherland), some stereotype bad guys add in a little bit action and humour and that's Fool's Gold in a nutshell. The chemistry between Matthew McConaughy and Kate Hudson is brilliant (they worked really well together even on 'How to lose a guy in 10 days'.) and the humour made me laugh out loud especially the stupid comments of the dim-witted dilettante Gemma Honeycutt played by Alexis Dziena. Although when the main bad guy (Bigg Bunny aka Bugs Bunny)asked his henchman 'Where's Cyrus?' to which the henchman replies 'he'll be up in a minute' followed by Cyrus' mangled, water spout corpse being blown up in the air I had to cringe a little at that one. The other thing that got me was when Moe got shot in the water by the harpoon gun and he was bleeding why were there no sharks around to feed on him? (unless the Bahamas doesn't have sharks? I have no idea) But when you go to see this film don't expect too much as it's supposed to be silly romance comedy. so I give it my 7 out of 10 vote.Jumana P.
18 out of 31 people found the following review useful: Balmy Escapism from the Winter Doldrums? Let's See…, 17 February 2008 Author: enli101 from United States
"Fools Gold" centers on an almost divorced, or newly divorced, or still madly-in-love couple (all 3 apply) searching for Spanish treasure that was sunk in a hurricane in 1715. Does the movie succeed as balmy escapism from the winter doldrums? Let's see…Is there action?: Yes, the action was there, fun at parts, but broken up by a lot of talking that really didn't advance the plot, but worked well to confuse it (I mean a lot of talking). There was also the sound of crickets chirping that at some points was so loud it drowned out the dialogue. On purpose perhaps?Did the actors have chemistry?: Yes, in "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days" they did. However, both Matthew McConaughey and Kate Hudson are likable enough off-screen and in other films that you want to root for them, despite the flaws of this film.How 'bout the location?: I was never quite sure where the story was supposed to be set. The real 1715 fleet went down off the Eastern coast of Florida near Cape Canaveral. At one point in the movie they said they were in Key West, but I've been there enough times to know that those mountainous islands in the distance weren't anywhere near Duval Street. The movie "The Deep," which also involved treasure hunters searching for the 1715 treasure, also suffered from a lack of appreciation of history, setting the wreck in Bermuda. But who can complain when you have a salty Robert Shaw and Jacqueline Bisset in a wet T-shirt?Funny?: The laughs were few and far between. Theo Huxtable from "The Cosby Show" was one of the baddies, and I think his pal in the film might have been Cockroach (no word on whether or not their knowledge of the 1715 treasure was based on "Cleland Notes"). I remember laughing at parts, and then waiting to laugh again, and I was still waiting when the lights came up and the usher rolled a trashcan in. I was still waiting when I got in my car. I'm still waiting.All bad?: What the movie does well is gets you out of the cold for a couple hours. There were picturesque vistas of the tropics, girls in bikinis, palm trees blowing in the breeze, and Bob Marley music in the background. You may fool yourself for a moment into believing that you're actually in the Caribbean, if you sneak in a Pina Colada or two, or three.Post Script: If you want to read a real thrilling, funny, and sexy adventure story about treasure hunting for the 1715 fleet, try reading Tom Ryan's novel "A Sword for Pizarro."
6 out of 8 people found the following review useful: Enjoyably fun, 21 February 2008 Author: kayakndive from United States
I found this movie so very entertaining. I thought Alexis Dziena who plays Gemma was so adorable, innocent, sweet, and fun. She brought a lot of entertainment to the movie and was able to hold her own among a very talented cast, especially the experienced pros. I didn't want to see this movie because I found the commercials boring and dull and also silly. I was happy I went along with friends, we all laughed, held out breath in places, rooted for the good guys to get that good. Kate Hudson and Matthew Matthew McConaughey are a good team together, and hope they do some more films together in the future. They're good together in comedy. I could also go on and on about the cast members who were a pleasant surprise to see.
8 out of 12 people found the following review useful: Everyone keeps bashing the guys who directed Meet the Spartans and such, what about Andy Tennant?, 28 February 2008 Author: Kristine (kristinedrama14@msn.com) from Chicago, Illinois
Oh, romantic comedies, I don't know why, but it seems like everyone is just being fooled into thinking these movies are original and funny. When I saw trailer for Fool's Gold, the first thing I thought was "Lemme sum up the movie for you..." and I did for my friends, they think I'm horrible for it, but I was right, everything that I said came true when I saw this movie. The reason why I saw it was because I got to see it for free and figured, just go ahead and give the movie a chance, sometimes I am a little too harsh on these films. So I went in with an open mind, nope, I was right, while this film was A LITTLE better than what I expected, it still was true to what I thought it was going to be. I was so blinded by everyone's tans, it was a bit insane, not to mention the horrible performances as well as cliché's.Ben and Tess are divorced, Tess is fed up with her husband spending all his time trying to find a treasure they've been searching for for years. But Ben is still very much in love with Tess and begs her to go for one last adventure with him, they go together with the help of Tess's boss, Nigel Honeycutt and his bimbo daughter, Gemma, to find the treasure. But of course there is always a villain who wants the treasure for evil purposes.The cliché's, Gemma, Tess's boss's daughter, she's a bimbo who acts like a total moron but is beautiful and sweet, blah blah blah and regains her friendship with her estranged dad. Ben and Tess, realistically, would they get back together? Let's say yes, but they'll be divorced again in a couple months. The script was horrible and the story just wasn't presented well and the actors were all wrong, I wouldn't recommend this film at all. Everyone is complaining about the Meet the Spartans directors and that those movies are "dumbing" down society, what about these lousy romantic comedies? Please, these movies are over done and are so over.2/10
Add another review
