- Studio: Warner Bros. Pictures
- Release Date: Feb 8, 2008
User Score
4.1
out of 10
Mixed or average reviews- based on 61 Ratings
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 26 out of 61
-
Mixed: 1 out of 61
-
Negative: 34 out of 61
Review this movie
-
Your Score10 out of 10
-
Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.
-
-
Submit
-
Check Spelling
-
Characters remaining: 5000 out of 5000
- User score
- Most active
- By date
- Most helpful
- Most Clicked
-
MorganFJul 20, 20083Totally laughless. The chemistry between McConaughey and Hudson wasnt there. It totally relied on McConaugheys bod (hes shirtless 80% of the time). More action than a romcom.
-
-
[Anonymous]Feb 7, 20080I liked this movie a lot more when it was called How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days.
-
-
Anon.....Apr 20, 20089Yeah so you don't have to think...at all. But for people who liked How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days, then this really was a good film. Ok, so not good, but its an easy watch..predictable..but fun. Its a good chick flick. And Matthew McConaughey is hot..so its all good..right?!
-
-
MikeF.Feb 11, 20080this movie is the classic stinker, would hope that Matt M reads his reviews and that smirk is wiped off his conceited face...but he and co star will make a ton of money off the dopes that watch this drivel.....geez...save your money for the good stuff, mostly rare movies that once in a while are worth seeing on the big screen.
-
-
AliceFeb 11, 20080Can we give minus numbers. REFUND!
-
-
BrianC.Feb 10, 20082This movie is painful to watch. The fact that I was dragged into this movie with the likes of "Michael Clayton", 'There Will Be Blood", "No Country For Old Men", and "Juno" all on the NOW PLAYING list made this even more excruciating.
-
-
JeffB.Feb 7, 20081From the first five minutes it was clear how bad the rest of the movie was going to be. The writing was poor, the plot predictable and acting ok. Hudson's tan looked a little awkward too...It just amazes me how these movies ever get made. I wouldn't waste my money on this movie.
-
-
ColinB.Feb 8, 20080Edward, I know you're joking -- and it's not funny.
-
-
SteveOJun 4, 20080whoever actually liked this movie belongs in a mental institution.
-
-
RickJ.Jul 5, 20086Better than I expected. Funny, though it could have been better.
-
-
SuleimanMFeb 11, 20080Read the score and use your imagination to think of what I'm trying to say.
-
-
AnjoiD.Feb 15, 20080"Fool's Gold" - The title refers only to the writers and producers. Those fools are going to get their own gold by scamming all the suckers who paid money to watch this terrible terrible movie. Don't even rent. Instead, download it, use the disc as a coaster.
-
-
DarkMageFeb 15, 20080Don't be fooled by the "treasure" and sense of adventure. This was the worst movie of the year. I counted TWO minor laughs in the audience. It fails miserably as a comedy and was completely boring. This was the Valentines date for me wife and I and she fell asleep. After she said I should have taken her to see Rambo -- she would have enjoyed it more!
-
-
StacyB.Feb 18, 20086
-
-
EdwardC.Feb 6, 200810I was mobilized by my girlfriend to go see this. And I expected pure CCRRAAPP!!!!!!! But wo!!!! It amazed me!! It is real fun, the director of Hitch still has spirit in him. Thats good.
-
-
FantasyFeb 8, 20080Just dreadful. They just keep cranking out this garbage. It will be gone within two weeks.
-
-
AndrewS.Mar 18, 200810Personally i thought the movie was funny and great but i am not saying that there are better movies out there because there are amazing movies out there such as Saving Private Ryan or Cast Away or I Am Legend. This movie deserves a straight 9-10
-
-
JayH.Jun 12, 20086Harmless romantic comedy, predictable as well as entertaining. Hudson comes off best. It should have been much better, but cute and it has some funny scenes. It has adventure, romance, some action and comedy. You can't go too terribly wrong with that.
-
-
GDogJun 18, 20089Fun, funny, and exciting. Good rent!
-
-
DeeO.Jun 26, 20082This movie sucked -- I hated it! I was hoping for the same chemistry that sizzled between MM & KH as in How to Lose a Guy, but was totally disappointed to find that their sizzled just simply fizzeled on my flat screen!
-
-
AnonymousSep 3, 20080They have the potential to be good actors but Matt and Kate have clearly become those type of douchebag actors who now rely on theor looks, need I mention their other really really bad romantic comedies they have ever made?
-
-
J.H.Feb 11, 20080Matthew has only been in two good movies...dazed and confused and a time to kill. he just keeps going downhill making one terrible romantic comedy after another. another Hollywood sellout just trying to get a fat check.
-
-
JFeb 11, 20080This is terrible. The plot and dialouge are honestly the worst i have come across in ages. I could not even count how many time they relied on Mathew getting hit in the head with shovels or other items as a method of forwarding plot. This film truly has no redeeming features, I dont have a clue how it ever got made.
-
-
KevinL.Feb 19, 20080This is by far the worst movie I've ever seen in my entire life period.
-
-
AriKJun 17, 20088I dont know why the people gave this movie a 0 it was great funny and romantic if u like 50 first dates you will love this.
-
-
JeremiahCJun 25, 20086
-
-
BillGFeb 14, 20090More completely mind numbing garbage. If my friends werent such dorks for having this , I never would have let myself been tortured like that. When this kind of hollywood schlock ceases to exist the the world will have improved.
-
-
Aug 27, 20101
prev
next
Page:
- 1
-
40A soggy, listless affair, this would-be fun-in-the-sun sunken-treasure frivolity starts taking on water from the get-go, thanks to drawn-out exposition and languid pacing.
-
40A listless romantic comedy that, almost out of desperation, turns a little more violent than necessary near the end.
-
Fool's Gold is the sort of movie that makes you look more kindly upon the WGA strike. It isn't merely bad--it's so desperate that the actors can scarcely conceal their contempt for the material.