It’s February, which means that, in addition to more sunlight and an influx of pink at CVS, we can expect lots and lots of bad movies. The beginning of the calendar year is the usual dumping ground for movies no one expects to be considered for Oscars: action movies too dull for the summer, comedies that have been “reshot” six or seven times, and a plethora of formulaic romantic comedies (romcoms, if you will), a genre that gets less respect than almost any other.
Formulaic movies mean bad reviews, and maybe even the question of why to review them in the first place. What’s the point, some journalistic types have asked, of just writing about these movies and what you liked or disliked about them? Shouldn’t there be a broader analysis, something trenchant and important to say about anything we’re going to talk about?
A case in point: Fools’s Gold, which comes out tomorrow. Starring Kate Hudson and Matthew McConaughey, it’s sort of a How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days meets MTV Spring Break meets National Treasure, or something. And no, it’s not particularly “good.” Silly tan blonde people jump around shirtless, dive into shining blue water and toss around words like “harpoon” and “galleon.” Very few plot points make sense (or matter, for that matter), and the overall tone is somewhere between tritely amusing and oddly violent, with plinkily-scored “emotional” moments every once in a while, usually featuring an awful Donald Sutherland.
But still, I enjoyed it. Really—I was probably laughing at it more than I was laughing with it, but I did laugh. Hudson glowed, McConaughey did his drunk surfer thing (n.b.: his next two movies are called Surfer Dude and Tropic Thunder), and neither embarrassed themself. It had some fun moments, if not any particularly noteworthy or memorable ones.
But isn’t that a valid reason to go to the movies? I like a little flash and fun in my life, and I think most people, even the ones who read and write movie reviews, would agree with me. One of my canons of reviewing (yeah, I have them) is that you have to judge something on its own terms, and Fool’s Gold’s terms may be modest or even questionable, but the movie does what it sets out to, which is all we can really ask.
A review, like a movie, need only fulfill its own goals. Those of us who read the reviews for the writing, who know the names of the critics and worry about the Oscars for months in advance, are in the (vocal) minority. Sometimes people read a review just to find out if they should see the movie or not. In its most basic form, a review enumerates the writer’s pleasures and dislikes at the experience of the film in question, hopefully in an entertaining way. Deeper analysis or greater commentary is not always necessary, and in the wrong places, can detract from the task at hand. In a perfect world, every movie would be both exhilaratingly fun and eminently thought-provoking, but as things stand, one of the two can be enough.
So I’ll just tell you—Fool’s Gold delivers exactly what you expect, no more no less. As fun as a coconut smoothie, and no more substantial.
