I watched Guy Ritchie’s new film – and I get why critics hated it | Films | Entertainment

When a big-budget adventure film starring John Krasinski and Natalie Portman drops on Apple TV+ with the promise of ancient secrets, global intrigue and long-lost artefacts, you’d expect some excitement.

But what truly caught my attention was the film’s Rotten Tomatoes score: a surprisingly low 36%. Still, I decided to give Fountain of Youth a fair shot – it’s directed by Guy Ritchie, after all, who’s proved his worth in the past with everything from stylish crime thrillers to Sherlock Holmes blockbusters.

And to be fair, Fountain of Youth isn’t a disaster. It’s not a terrible film, just a thoroughly underwhelming one. There are glimpses of hope – moments of visual flair, the odd flicker of chemistry, and an occasionally enjoyable visual set piece. But for a movie that promises eternal life and globe-trotting magic, it ends up feeling oddly lifeless.

The plot follows Luke Purdue (Krasinski), a disgraced archaeologist-turned-thief who steals paintings from shady characters in Thailand before dragging his estranged sister Charlotte (Portman), a museum curator who gets into a good amount of trouble for his sake, into a treasure hunt linked to their late father’s work.

The prize is the mythical Fountain of Youth, hidden beneath one of the Seven Wonders of the World and protected by an ancient secret society. Along the way, there are sunken ships, coded Bibles, double-crosses, heavily armed mercenaries and, of course, plenty of narrow escapes.

On paper, it’s a fun ride, but the execution feels flat. The dialogue is sometimes cringe-worthy, and when it does try to be witty or heartfelt, it often veers into the corny or unconvincing. Several lines feel like they were written to sound clever but land awkwardly instead.

There’s an effort to layer in the characters – Charlotte is going through a divorce (which if referenced in one of the unfunny jokes), Luke’s motives are tied to their father’s unfinished work, and her young son is thrown into the mix.

But these elements are skimmed over so lightly that they struggle to register, making for a film that looks like it has depth, but feels surprisingly hollow.

It doesn’t help that the second half drags. After a reasonably engaging first act – an opening scene in scenic Thailand, as well as the museum heist and some sibling banter – the story begins to lose steam.

And from that point on, the plot becomes increasingly muddled and repetitive: more riddles, more locations, more near-misses, but little sense of escalation, tension or urgency.

There’s also an issue with tone: Here, Guy Ritchie’s direction feels restrained, almost cautious. The action scenes are competently shot but lack personality, and the humour is done with jokes that either fall flat or feel misplaced.

Some comments online even highlight how this film feels like if Ritchie has been asked to suppress his natural style in favour of something more conventionally family-friendly.

That said, the film isn’t without its positives. The production values are impressive – from Viennese libraries to the Egyptian desert, the film looks fantastic. Cinematographer Alan Stewart captures some beautiful vistas, and the sets, especially the pyramid interiors, are detailed and atmospheric.

The supporting cast is also solid, even if underused. Domhnall Gleeson plays Owen Carver, a corporate tycoon funding the expedition for not-so-noble reasons. His performance is suitably smooth and menacing, but his character never quite becomes the antagonist the film needs.

Stanley Tucci and Eiza González both pop up, offering brief flashes of charisma, and Carmen Ejogo, playing the mysterious Esme, brings a quiet intensity to the screen, though her character’s motivations remain frustratingly vague until the very end.

It’s clear the film wants to echo the spirit of classic adventure stories – Indiana Jones, The Mummy, etc – and there are moments where it almost gets there. But too often, it feels like a parody of other films rather than a confident entry of its own.

The references and inspirations are obvious, and while that’s not a problem in itself, Fountain of Youth never quite finds its own voice.

Then there’s one last issue: The mystical Fountain at the centre of it all is awaited with grandiosity, but its supposed danger is only vaguely hinted at. The final revelation – of its real devastating side effect – is an interesting idea, but it arrives too late and is resolved too easily.

Finally, I don’t doubt that some viewers will enjoy this film. It’s easy to watch, visually appealing, and has enough globe-trotting action to satisfy the need for some lighthearted, low-expectations fun. But if you were hoping for something more, you’ll likely end up disappointed.