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.
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.