Let’s talk about something you might have heard of before: second-screen entertainment. It’s a fancy term that streaming services like Netflix and Amazon Prime came up with after noticing a trend. Many viewers—probably you included—don’t always give their full attention to the content on their screens. Instead, they watch something on Netflix while scrolling on their phones, browsing the web, or even chatting with someone in the room. This is why, at any given moment, you might realize you’ve missed a scene or two and ask someone nearby: “Wait, who’s that? Is that the same person from earlier?”
Welcome to the age of multi-tasking. And this brings us to a film that feels tailor-made for just that: “Fountain of Youth.”
The movie is a masterclass in second-screen entertainment. It’s not designed to engage you fully; rather, it wants you to check in now and then while you’re absorbed in something else. If you find yourself glancing at your phone, half-listening to the dialogue, and missing important details, don’t worry—that’s exactly how this film was intended to be watched. In fact, you might even miss some key plot points if you’re not paying attention. And that’s okay because, in “Fountain of Youth,” that’s kind of the point. It’s a film that doesn’t ask for your full involvement, but it does want to make sure it’s always there, running in the background.
The Plot: Adventure, Family Drama, and Lost Artifacts
“Fountain of Youth” stars John Krasinski as Luke Purdue, an adventurer in search of the mythical fountain of youth. But here’s the kicker: we’re never quite sure if the fountain is even real. His sister Charlotte, played by Natalie Portman, used to be a part of these wild adventures, but she’s long since left that life behind to work at an art gallery. She’s trying to lead a normal life, far removed from her past. But of course, that’s not how movies like this work. Luke ropes her back into his world of high-stakes treasure hunts and high-speed chases.
Right off the bat, the movie makes sure you know exactly who these characters are. There’s a lot of exposition—characters explaining their backstories, their family relationships, and their motivations. In fact, it’s almost as though the film can’t go a full minute without telling you exactly what’s happening or why it’s happening. Charlotte’s life is laid out in one long conversation: “Ten years ago, I was out adventuring, but then Dad died, I had a baby, and had to grow up.” This could be an action movie, but instead, it’s like a job interview resume being read out loud. There’s no subtlety here—everything is explicitly explained to make sure you, the viewer, never miss a thing, even if you’re only half-watching.
Style and Substance: More Flash than Bang
The film’s director, Guy Ritchie, has made a name for himself with stylish, action-packed films like Snatch and Sherlock Holmes. He knows how to deliver entertaining films with a flair for visual style. But here, it’s like the style is there just for the sake of it. The action scenes feel flat and repetitive. There’s a lot of camera movement—whip-pans, quick cuts—but none of it evolves or builds. If you’ve seen one action scene, you’ve seen them all. It’s as though Ritchie is trying to grab your attention with flashy sequences, but ultimately, they’re just there to keep you vaguely engaged while you’re scrolling through Instagram or replying to texts.
The film also suffers from what can only be described as visual overload. The cinematography by Ed Wild has some neat ideas—focus shifts, creative angles, and a wide-format that aims to make things look dynamic. But there’s too much happening in a single frame, and nothing really stands out. It’s the kind of film where the action feels secondary to just having something happening on screen. The filmmakers know that second-screen watchers won’t mind if the plot gets lost in all the eye candy. After all, it’s meant to be content, not art.
Characters and Dialogue: A Little Too On-the-Nose
Luke Purdue’s character is a bit of a mess. Krasinski plays him like a normal guy who just wants to be liked, but the role demands a certain kind of reckless charm. This is a Guy Ritchie film, after all. What this film needs is someone with a motormouth—a character who’s so effortlessly charismatic that even when he’s up to no good, you still root for him. But Krasinski, for all his likability, never fully embraces that mischievous, troublemaking energy. Instead, he seems to want to be the “good guy,” the relatable adventurer. And that doesn’t quite work in this context.
The film’s dialogue doesn’t help matters. The characters are constantly explaining things, and not in a way that feels natural. It’s like they’re talking to someone who’s not watching the movie at all—just talking for the sake of filling the silence. “Are you still mad about what happened on The Lusitania?” Luke asks Charlotte, mere minutes after an intense hostage moment. It’s almost as if the writers are so afraid you’ll miss something that they repeat things over and over, just to be sure you’re fully caught up—even if you’re only half-watching.
The History Angle: The Lusitania and Lost Opportunities
Part of the story involves the sinking of the Lusitania, a real historical event. The Lusitania was the largest cruise ship of its time, and it was sunk by a German U-boat during World War I, killing hundreds of passengers, including a family member of the screenwriter. It’s an important part of the plot, but the film handles it like an afterthought. There’s a moment when Luke casually explains the Lusitania’s history—“We all know it was the largest cruise liner, and during WWI, a German U-boat sank it…” It’s as though the filmmakers are checking off a historical fact, but doing so with all the emotional weight of a Wikipedia entry. Instead of creating a sense of urgency or tension, it feels like filler.
A Third Act That Finally Delivers… Sort Of
The last third of the film does improve. It’s much quieter, and the characters venture into an ancient, booby-trapped structure reminiscent of Indiana Jones. This is where Ritchie’s talents really shine. The exploration of the ruins is handled with care, and the stakes finally feel high. The action takes a break from the repetitive chases and shootouts, and you can almost feel the film’s pulse again. Unfortunately, it’s too little, too late. While the final act has its moments, it’s not enough to save the overall feeling of content rather than a film with lasting impact.
The Bigger Picture: Streaming Content vs. Cinema
“Fountain of Youth” exemplifies a new trend in filmmaking. It’s a film that doesn’t demand much of your attention—because, let’s be honest, streaming platforms don’t want you to pay attention to their content. They want you to leave it running in the background, collecting views, whether you’re engaged or not. It’s the era of content, not art. These kinds of films are designed to get you through the day without having to focus too much on what’s happening.
Ultimately, the movie feels like a product, something that could be replaced by any other film on the platform and you wouldn’t miss it. It’s not that it’s unwatchable—it’s just that it doesn’t try to be memorable. It doesn’t push boundaries or make you think. Instead, it exists to fill up space on your screen while you do other things. It’s the kind of movie that exists just to be watched—but not really seen.
In a world where content is king, “Fountain of Youth” is the perfect example of a movie designed not to leave an impression but to fill time. Whether that’s a good or bad thing depends on what you’re looking for: a cinematic experience or just something to keep you company while you scroll.
