Fountain of Youth

Yeah, the same director of criminal dark comedies like "Lock, stock and two smoking barrels " is making pg-13 movies, trying to obscure all Indiana Jones movies and hundreds of adventures like "Meg" etc.

I don't know really. May be I'm just too old to watch same cliched films over and over again, but everything great has ended 10 years ago or even earlier. People don't need new Lara Croft, people need a rethinked concept of some NEW adventure formula. Not just "seek'n found" with chases and one-trait-characters. Guy Ritchie is perfect at crimes, perfect at mixing it with dark comedies. But his last movies are just lame attempts to grab a bite of "Umcharted"-like blockbusters.

Sorry, but no. Skip.

Great cast fantastic director interesting premise and a boat load of cash and you get a mediocre movie that had so much and delivers so little.

Guy Ritchie is in my opinion one of the finest british directors of my age and he has made some great modern classics from snatch and lockstock to his lesser works like ruse de gare. I would always have said even If I didn't like the film he stayed true to his aesthetic and put his whole into his art: this I hope is the exception that proves the rule.

A mash of all the best parts of the great adventure treasure hunt films of the past from Indiana Jones to national treasure there is a bit of all the best mixed up and ruined in a obviously expensive project. The end result is heartless and dull it feels like the studio may have interfered in the production but whatever the end result just left me sad and ambivolent.

How is this the same writer who wrote Zodiac??? The writing in Fountain of Youth was brutally cliche and soulless and derivative. So I'm praying Apple didn't do something idiotic like get some AI input or something, because that's what it felt like - painfully so at times.

The actors did the best they could with the script, and I LOVE that this is a non-franchise, non-reboot, original story. So a huge bravo for that, but the writing was just a constant distraction.

Guy Richie is Guy Richie, and I can see why he's a safe choice for film execs, but damn- this film is a good example of needing to raise the bar. Krasinski and Portman give it their all, but I felt bad for them having to deal with these characters and the painfully awkward dialogue.

C'mon Guy Ritchie, Natalie Portman, and John Krasinski. I'm a huge fan of all three but this movie was painful. None of the characters were interesting, the "Dad" back story didn't build any intrigue, the fighting between the siblings was obnoxious, the dream sequences were cheesy, I could have made better special effects with my home computer a YouTube tutorial, and the ending was awful. The whole movie I kept thinking about how excited the actors must have been to sign on to work with Guy Ritchie, but then so disappointed to see the finished product. I expected way more than this embarassing dribble.

If you had seen a movie and a half about adventure and old artifacts in the past, or played a similar video game, you know what this movie is about. In about 10 minutes through, you will figure it out..the plot, the bad guy etc. That is not the problem. We watch these movies time and time again for the fun ride, the amount of historical nonsense they can cram through while keeping that entertaining. Sense be damned.

What kept most of these movies fun, are the charm, the cheese, the quirks here and there, fun characters, great locations and action. Those often overlapped sense, character depth and meaning. This movie does not lack on the visuals and actions, it lacks in the former 3. I don't know. It felt too clean and devoid of pleasantries that attract you toward a popcorn adventure flick. It is just..too linear.

Perhaps they wanted to be different, or maybe they did not want to offend someone. I can't believe a Guy Ritchie movie could ever unfunny specially when it's meant to have comedic elements. Ah well, whatever the reason, it was in fact, a mistake. 6/10 for pretty people and locations.