REVIEW: GoldBy Quinn OxleyJanuary 28, 2017Usually, I try to give a movie as much credit as I can.  But when a movie gives you very little to work with, how much credit can really be given?

That’s how it felt to watch Gold.  Other than Matthew McConaughey’s being in it, I knew nothing going into it, so I had no expectations… and yet, somehow, I was disappointed.

Here’s what happens:
Down-on-his-luck prospector Kenny Wells (McConaughey) contracts geologist Michael Acosta (Édgar Ramírez) and invests his last dime in a possible gold mine in Indonesia.

Here’s why you should care:


(Notice how the list of reasons why you should care is empty.)

The first act contains almost nothing of value.  I mean, Matthew McConaughey is great as usual, and Bryce Dallas Howard carries her scenes as well, but it was so hard to care about what was happening, which is one of the worst offenses a movie can commit.

What makes things even more confusing is that the film wasn’t even terrible.  It wasn’t laughably bad, or dreadfully bad, it was just… unexciting.  It didn’t make me feel anything.  I think I got more enjoyment out of the vegetarian minestrone I had after watching the film.

The first act gives you almost nothing.  It does pick up as the film gets going, and the framing story makes you at least a bit curious, but it’s just so hard to get invested in these characters, which makes Gold a two-hour exercise in looking at a screen.

Is it good, though?

Not really.  I don’t feel the need to see it again.

Rating: 3.5/10

2016 © ScreenFellas Entertainment