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.
Fool's Gold (2008) 1080p YIFY Movie
Fool's Gold (2008) 1080p
A new clue to the whereabouts of a lost treasure rekindles a married couple's sense of adventure -- and their estranged romance.
IMDB: 5.417 Likes
The Synopsis for Fool's Gold (2008) 1080p
Benjamin Finnegan is a deep-sea treasure hunter certain he's onto the find of the century in waters near an island close to Key West owned by a murderous rap star to whom Ben is in debt. Ben's flat broke and recently divorced from Tess, his long-time research and diving partner whom he still loves. She's nearby, working as a steward aboard the yacht of Nigel Honeycutt, a multimillionaire. The rapper has hired a rival treasurer hunter. Can Ben convince Nigel to bankroll his search, convince Tess to work with him, keep the rapper and his thugs at bay, and find a Spanish treasure hidden for centuries and rich beyond imagination?
The Director and Players for Fool's Gold (2008) 1080p
The Reviews for Fool's Gold (2008) 1080p
Not as horrible as everyone saysReviewed byLark_PashVote: 5/10
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 matinee. 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.
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.