- Studio: Miramax Films
- Release Date: Nov 9, 2007
User Score
7.3
out of 10
Generally favorable reviews- based on 995 Ratings
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 744 out of 995
-
Mixed: 83 out of 995
-
Negative: 168 out of 995
Review this movie
-
-
Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.
-
-
Submit
-
Check Spelling
- User score
- Most active
- By date
- Most helpful
- Most Clicked
-
DavidS.Mar 13, 20081Overrated, over-hyped, couldn't wait until it was over. Enough said.
-
-
MaggieMar 15, 20080Soooo stupid, soooo lame, soooo boring. Give me my 2 hours back. Soooo hollywood crap.
-
-
MikeSt.Mar 4, 20081Anyone who rated this movie higher than five must be unaware that it has been made dozens of times before. Guy takes drug dealers money and drug dealer chases him - the only difference is the other movies actually had an ending. The Coen brothers borrowed a tired plot and the ending of "The Sopranos" and get an academy award? No wonder nobody watches that joke of an awards ceremony anymore.
-
-
JacoboN.Apr 20, 20083Overrated movie, a not so good FARGO .
-
-
SKApr 20, 20080A VERY VERY bad movie. I have no idea how this movie won an Oscar. I contemplated multiple times during the movie of walking out, but I endured till the end in the hope that the end would salvage the movie. No such thing, the end leaves you with an even worse feeling. Horrible, horrible movie.
-
-
KrisKelleyApr 6, 20083Unsatisfying ending.
-
-
DCApr 30, 20093
-
-
HughBApr 18, 20100
-
-
KyleB.Nov 30, 20070Good movie, but the ranking needs to go down because of the ending, no way it should be 8.0 more like 5 or 6.
-
-
DWillyNov 9, 20073
-
-
MattBDec 14, 20073
-
-
TedT.Apr 13, 20083What was all the hype about???? You must be kidding me. This was shot like something from the 70's. If thats what turned you on..then watch something from the 70's. I'm still scratching my head over why I heard so many people say "best movie I've seen" are you serious? This was nothing more than...nothing.
-
-
JohnD.Oct 27, 20083Intriguing but not a movie I would say was enjoyable. The acting was incredibly good but the ending left me with no closure which I so desperately was looking for in a movie that was convoluted in many ways. Too many unanswered questions for me and I would not recommend this movie and do not understand all the hype it has received.
-
-
ewenm.Mar 8, 20083Way over-rated. pointless, characters void of any interest; been done better many times before.
-
-
TinoR.May 3, 20081Rented the video for a dollar at a vending machine in the local drug store. It wasn't even worth the dollar.
-
-
JeffB.Jul 20, 20090Although the actors did a great job ... the plot had no substance or meaning due to a poorly written ending. I don't even think the Director could tell you what it meant. All i can figure out is they reached thier target budget and said "Alright ... let's end it here".
-
-
RichJan 28, 20082
-
-
blueenigma-blackgirlFeb 10, 20082
-
-
Stung47000Jan 20, 20090Who told Hollywood that in order to make an original movie nowadays you have to make it suck at the end? The movie was a 10 until the last act, but then it ended so god-awful it actually deserves a negative score for failing so hard!
-
-
JoelJan 20, 20081I'm with Steve and M B on this one its like the Coen bros. are paying the review crew to suck their cocks; the only reason I give this Boring ass movie a 1 is for the cool ass Air gun and thats IT.
-
-
DougMar 14, 20080Pointless violence strung together by a thin plot with an ending that looks like they just run out of money and stopped. Hard to fathom how it could get nominated let alone win any award.
-
-
DaveDec 28, 20090
-
-
[Anonymous]Nov 14, 20070I would like to point out that the reason for DWilly's confusion is probably because the book itself is confused. Moss is supposed to be 37 in the book, a Vietnam vet, yet people are described using cell phones. So something's not right.
-
-
Aug 29, 20100
-
Aug 21, 20110I think they are ill. After about an hour one no longer cares who lives or dies. My own life experience is utterly at odds with what is shown. We are told that the theme is biblical. Tosh. I repeat: I think that the Coen brothers are ill.
-
Aug 24, 20110This film is a steaming pile of **** and one of the worst movies I have ever scene 0 out of 10
-
Oct 7, 20120This movie sucked. There's a reason why it lost money at the box office, and was winner at the least-watched Academy Awards of all time. That reason is this: it's boring, pretentious, and shoddily made.
-
AnonymousMCFeb 3, 20081
-
-
LaurenceE.Jul 6, 20084I saw this movie on dvd at home on a big screen projector.Maybe it was a different version to the one at the cinema.. I thought it was a predictable story with no twists of any great substance. I was not on the edge of my seat nor was it a thriller or heart stopping. Some of the acting was ok but I was disappointed overall. I would not recommend this movie to anyone.
-
-
DavidFosterJan 3, 20081
-
-
90It’s a near masterpiece.
-
100Joel and Ethan Coen's adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's 2005 novel is an indisputably great movie, at this point the year's very best.
-
90It's the most ambitious and impressive Coen film in at least a decade, featuring the flat, sun-blasted landscapes of west Texas -- spectacularly shot by cinematographer Roger Deakins -- and an eerily memorable performance by Javier Bardem, in a Ringo Starr haircut.