I almost started off hating this movie before I had seen it; I thought the trailer looked like crap, with horrible comedic dialog and premises, but I took the chance on free screening tickets, figuring I could make fun at worst. The film opens with shooting at the hip action and stays pretty entertaining in comedy and delivery. Witherspoon's character's sister (Chelsea Handler) and their interactions are lots of fun. Chris Pine does a good job being semi-typecast and the movie doesn't take itself too seriously. It's way better than expected and I wouldn't have been upset had I paid full price for it. Like a review I read said, it's a romantic movie that guys won't have to be dragged to. Is it a great movie? No. Is it a fun valentines movie? Yes.
Add a Review
-
shaidarharan2 February 2012
-
I went to go see this movie with two friends, Im a big fan of Tom Hardy and have seen all of his movies and other stuff. I... kinda liked the movie... it was kinda bad but I kinda liked it. Lets get a few things out the way. Editing was horrible, the entire opening looked like a trailer and the later scenes I was screaming "CUT!" at the movie. Acting is solid through out the movie although the movie really just centres around FDR and Laurens relationship because Tuck and her don't have any chemistry really. There are about... four fights, they use shaky cam and you cant tell what was happening, for some reason when FDR and Tuck fight its really short and Tuck takes most of the hits. There are a few good scenes in the movie but I didn't laugh that much apart from Tucks date scene that I found amusing as he guns down teenagers and man-handles others in a paint ball game.
Really, the best parts were in the trailers and thats really it, if you want Chris Pine watch "Star Trek", if you want Tom Hardy watch "Bronson" or "Warrior", Reese Witherspoon... I haven't seen any good movies with her in...
"This Means War" could have been a good movie but its to much of a RomCom that has horrible editing and choppy fight scenes. The action scenes are few and far between and generally meh except the Paintball scene that is in all the trailers. -
I'm mad about this Spy Vs Spy movie. Directed by McG, the romantic comedy spy film is just blatantly sexist, barf-inducing movie. The movie is about two CIA agents, Tuck Hansen (Tom Hardy) and Franklin 'FDR' Foster (Chris Pine) who are best friends whom discovered that they are dating the same woman, Lauren Scott (Reese Witherspoon) forcing a childish immature love triangle. Each man takes turns trying to ruin the other man's date using high-tech spying and weaponry in unfunny ways. That's our tax dollars, people! We've paying for two guys trying to cock-block each other. Also, neither of them face serious consequences for their wasting of government property. Chris Pine's character comes off as an arrogant womanizer that seem no different than his recent previous roles. It's nothing new. It's just while 2009's Star Trek, James T. Kirk had some strengths and some morals limits. This guy had none and you felt it. He totally lied to her about everything from his interests on, to low trick to make her have pity for him. This character is just slimy. Tom Hardy seem out of place, as the supposedly normal likable guy. Honestly, this actor is a great character actor, and he seem limited as hell in this role. Badly miscast. Also, what type of spy join a social network site when people trying to kill him, to find love, anyways? James Bond, he isn't. Reese Witherspoon's character is less of a person, and more like a prize, whom Reese had to act so dumb that she couldn't see the creepiest that both men are showing, throughout the film. Also, she just as unlikeable, with seeing both guys behind each other' backs the whole time without telling them and using them for eye candy in front of her ex. What a two-timer! She makes really bad shallow decisions throughout the film that is so irritating. Wow, who knew stalking and invasion of privacy could be so "romantic"? This whole concept is creepy as hell. This movie was no 1996's True Lies with a similar premise. The different between James Cameron's True Lies and this movie is that the main character has a reason to spy on her, because he has a feeling that she was cheating on him. Franklin 'FDR" Foster and Tuck Hansen has no reason to, because both know each other are dating her, and one of them, even tries to back down so the other could date her. The movie feels like a movie that was really trying to Rated R, but was shoehorn into being PG-13 with its sex humor. A lot of this unfunny humor comes from supporting character, Trish (Chelsea Handler) who for the most part of the film is annoying as hell. There is a lot of extended cuts of just Trish spitting out the worst guidance. Glad, they cut most of her scenes out. There is also additional spy gigs that were delete. An extended cut consists of the 'fake family scene', in which Tuck Henson pays a few actors to play his family in order to impress Lauren was one of them. It was a bit awkward for PG-13. There's a lot of weird dark Patriot Act humor in this movie as well. Such in the case of the torture scene, in which the two main guys torture a guy, while talking about how they will win, over Lauren. WTF!? It's just as bad, as shooting a drone scene. Honestly, the only time, I really did laugh was the paintball scene. The action scenes are some of the worst. The shots are cut too fast as you can barely see what is happening. The worst had to be the car chase scene toward the end, where the editing was just below standards with jump cut from scenes in a parking lot to scenes in a freeway settling. There is reasons for that, as the movie cut a lot of scenes for test screenings or scenes being too gross or dark, with one being a scene at the abandoned warehouse. The movie release has three different alternate endings: either Lauren choosing neither; Lauren choosing FDR or Lauren choosing Tuck. I wish, there was a version of Lauren choosing to die. That's the version, I like to see. The movie had a number of rewrites. At one time, the film was tailored for two African-American comic actors. It was full of offending ridiculous urban slang. I'm at less, glad, the script is not as bad as it used to be. Overall: It was just a poor excuse of an action romantic comedy. Not worth the watch, unless you got nothing else to watch. It was terrible. Watch 1997's True Lies. That one work the concept better.
-
Hey, this isn't Citizen Kane. But it's funny, the actors are all good, and even though the premise is pretty silly--two secret agent types pursuing the same woman--the writers milked the possibilities about as much as they could without getting mindlessly stupid. The principals don't try to assassinate each other, merely to undermine one another's efforts, and the story works. Also, it doesn't hurt in a Rom-Com that Reese Witherspoon looks gorgeous throughout--as I suppose do Chris Pine and Tom Hardy for those more inclined in that direction--and the supporting cast is equally charming, with Chelsea Handler and Abigail Spencer especially deserving of kudos. What's not to like?
-
tabuno14 August 2019This Means War (2012). Starring Reese Witherspoon, Chris Pine, and Tom Hardy this fascinating fusion of espionage, action, and comedy brings to the screen a dating two men dilemma in a thriller format. While competent enough, the attempt to offer the audience big action thrills while at the same time balancing the antics of two men fawning for the same woman diffuses the smart focused energy of each of these major movie genres on screen. Another problem that develops is the rather questionable ethical scheming that occurs and who Witherspoon's character eventually attaches herself to. Contrast The Hitman's Bodyguard (2017), The True Memoirs of an International Assassin (2016), Red (2010), Mr. and Mrs. Smith (2005), The Matador (2005) or even The Long Kiss Goodnight (1996) where these espionage comedies incorporate relational themes as a secondary, accompanying screen time experiences. Perhaps the best cover action thriller with a twist of humor is to be found in Killing Eve (2018).
-
v-ley10 July 2016It wasn't as bad as most of the people writing reviews have said. I found it entertaining, to a certain point. After "tuck" has his date, there was no need for the other one to jump right in, it doesn't happen in real life up to a point, I'm guessing. I'm not giving anything away, it's all in the bio. The actors, at least Tom, was way above the silliness, and you can tell he wasn't enjoying this movie as much as his more serious roles. He is too good of an Actor for this movie and his talent is wasted. Chris comes off as this creepy- older- smooth- operator and that just doesn't go away, a normal woman would have picked that up in a heartbeat. I didn't pause or fast forward, which is a plus, but I really wouldn't recommend the movie if you are truly wanting a feel-good Rom-Com. I agree that Reese wasn't her best, or if she is, she's NOT my kind of actor. Again, I have to go with it being just too silly. It would have made a better movie if one of the guys had had to choose, and not the other way around. She wasn't believable, and quite frankly, Tom was too good for this movie.
-
Yanzig11 December 2012This is a god awful concoction of s*** stew. Lauren (Witherspoon) is presented as a 30 something frumpy, self conscious idiot who's introduction is spent lying about her life to an ex she runs into and sighing over her loneliness. After her friend hooks her up with an online dating profile, she sees Tuck's (Hardy) picture, and decides she is going to give it a shot. She meets Tuck, they immediately engage in back and forth watered down humour and then suddenly, due to poor editing, the date ends without any sign of how long it was. She then goes to rent a DVD.. (who does that in 2012?) where she meets FDR (Pine), who tries to obnoxiously hit on her. In the span of a few hours, she is hit on by both Hardy and Pine, and develops wit and confidence, and actually shoots one of them down. This is coming from a chick who hasn't been able to talk to men in years. All it took was for her to experience a wardrobe change, and miraculously we never see awkward, frumpy Lauren again. Instead, enters the sexy irresistible Lauren we always knew was under that frump! The rest of the movie, we see Pine and Hardy competing for her affection and the ultimate answer: which man does she fall in love with?!
There is an unlikely friendship between Pine and Hardy; federal agents who consider each other family, yet have no problem sabotaging one another for a girl. Neither of them have parents yet we are constantly reminded that this is more of an embarrassing problem for "sensitive" Hardy than Pine. Why? NO ONE KNOWS.
There are a lot of plot holes and hints at what emotional direction the film wants you to take, but without resolution. When they first meet, Hardy's character relies more on his honesty and genuine kindness to win over Lauren, yet Pine basically tricks her into liking him after her rejection. The film, clearly steers us in the direction of favouring Tuck, yet Lauren chooses FDR in the end. WHY does Lauren pick the man who deceived his way into her heart, over the guy she was naturally falling for? WTF.
Never mind this being an "action" movie, these men don't have time for action! They are too busy falling in love! Too busy calculating their next chess move against each other by spending their time spying on her. Any woman with an ounce of self respect would be completely mortified after finding out her home was invaded and tapped with surveillance. Yet, this wasn't even questioned. Like people have mentioned, the moral of the story is, the American ass-hole wins the girl, while the British gentlemen gets his own left overs, his ex wife.
Through out the entire film, I felt embarrassed for Hardy. So much talent, charisma, sexiness... all gone to waste in this ridiculous film, although he actually pulled off what he could with a terribly written script and terrible co-stars. This type of movie, I would expect from Witherspoon and Pine, but Hardy... at the peak of his career? Why did he do this? Out of pity? I just don't understand.
I am left with confusion and frustration. I will let this one pass Tom, but if you ever do this to me again... I just don't know if I could excuse it. -
Okay, critics, what the hell? I saw this movie at 7:30 at Movieland: A Bow Tie Cinema in Richmond, VA. Great theater, props! Anyways. The theater was packed. It was the biggest screen, too, but it was the only showing. If the audience reaction was anything to go on, this movie was hilarious. I certainly thought so. But not only that—it was a good movie!
Summary aside, this movie actually turned out to be one of my favorite romantic comedies and buddy comedies all in one. It was very fast-paced. It had the element of government agents, but also government agents that abuse their job's resources. There are 'bad guys' but it doesn't dominate the movie. The scenes with the bad guys start off with the preconception that they would be long and intense, but were actually only 60 seconds long and just a short break between the comedy and action. The funny parts—yes, they were funny. I was cracking up the entire time, and I don't do that often. Visually it looked amazing; watching on Blu-Ray will be spectacular. I, for one, will buy this on Blu-Ray. My roommate will thank me.
Yes, young people like myself will enjoy this movie, but it's also targeted for late twenties-late thirties people thinking about love and marriage. I saw a lot of older couples at the theaters and they were enjoying it just as much—they were laughing loudest, in fact! I'd give this movie a 9/10. Pure enjoyment.
So my issue: WTF Critics? You give this movie zero credit. Is it because of the actors? They're all great actors. Plot? Actually pretty good—somewhat predictable in hindsight but I'd still watch the movie again. Director? Supernatural and Nikita both have a fanbase, and aren't that bad with action or drama. If they actually watched the movies they wouldn't have rated it that low; I think they were going off plot summary. Back off, critics! When more people see this movie the ratings will go up! Rotten tomatoes said audience enjoyed it 71% so far, but opening day isn't even over yet. Critics give it 33%? Come on. (From tvcinema.tumblr.com (my blog) ) -
This Means War (2012)
* 1/2 (out of 4)
Best friends and CIA agents FDR (Chris Pine) and Tuck (Tom Hardy) finally hit the dating scene and both end up falling in love with the same girl (Reese Witherspoon). The girl, Lauren, is also just hitting the dating scene and is getting advice from her best friend (Chelsea Handler) who suggests she date two men and then decide which one is the best. Not knowing that her two men know one another, she sets out to see who is the best and the men decide to do war on each other. THIS MEANS WAR is a very, very, very stupid movie. Now, you might say that all romantic comedies need to be somewhat stupid and I think that's true but this film is so insulting to the three stars and their characters that I really wanted to jump through the screen and just scream at them. The three are constantly doing very stupid things that are just so over-the-top and out there that they're not charming but instead they're creepy. The fact that the two men, in the CIA. are using millions of dollars and high tech equipment to spy on each other is just a little weird. Even weirder is a scene where one of the men ends up having sex with the girl and since both have bugged her apartment with cameras their co-workers are back at the office watching them. You really have to wonder what these "agents" are supposed to be doing. Oh yeah, there's a subplot about them going after a bad guy but this entire thing is so unbelievable that you really can't take any of it serious. What's even worse is that all three of the characters, considering their professions, would have to be intelligent people yet they never do anything smart. They do nothing but something an uneducated moron would do and yet we're supposed to believe their characters. The Handler character is just there delivering very bad one-liners and the advice also seems so silly that you wonder why someone like Witherspoon would even bother with this person. I've been a fan of Witherspoon's since around 1991 and I must say that it's getting sad to see her in film's like this. Someone so talented delivering pictures like this and HOW DO YOU KNOW is just sad to see. Yes, she's "good" her but does it really matter when such talent is being wasted? Both Pine and Hardy are good in their bits but they too should be insulted by this screenplay (and happy with the paycheck I'm sure). This was my first time seeing Handler and I can't say I was impressed. THIS MEANS WAR is just a really stupid movie with stupid characters doing stupid things. Am I taking a comedy to serious? I don't think so especially when no one involved bothered to make it good. -
Seth_Rogue_One24 July 2014I expected more of a spy action comedy but really it's a romantic comedy disguised as that...
I mean it's not as cheesy as a lot of romcoms but a romcom none the less...
The acting is alright, never was a big Chris Pine fan but I guess he does what's required of him which is being a "pretty boy" who always gets the girl...
Tom Hardy is slightly better his character is more likable I suppose, he's sort of the underdog of the two...
Reese Witherspoon is pretty charming throughout the movie and her friend (played by Chelsea Handler) provides some fun moments with her straight forward in your face personality...
There's a little action in the beginning and a action scene to end it all, in between though not so much, although the 2 men do get physical with one each other at some points it's not enough to suffice a action- buff who simply's in it for the action...
It's alright fluffy entertainment -
bigburlybear27 February 2012Two elite CIA agents, Franklin and Tuck, operating out of Los Angeles are suspended for fouling up an assassination operation in HK. Since they have nothing else to do, they start looking for women. As fate would have it, they fall for the same woman, Lauren.
So in brotherly comradarie they agree to compete for her. For the unfortunate woman she goes suddenly from having no male attention (not really believable but there you have it) to have two virile, interesting and attractive men pursuing her.
This is where the high comedy should begin: but it is very ham-fisted and relies heavily on over the top action and sexual innuendo. The banter is forced, and the jokes are too predictable.
We, the viewers, see that of the two men, Tuck (the less attractive one) is upfront and genuine, and Franklin (the more attractive one) is rather deceitful and willing to lie to impress the girl. However, the deceitful one actually falls for the girl and scorns all the other women is currently sleeping with to be with Lauren. The script gave no plausibility for this change, and even within the genre it is a bit too much.
We know which one she chooses - the more attractive one of course!!! And somehow she manages to maintain the relationship when she realises that Franklin know absolutely nothing about Klimt, and really does not help out at the animal shelter, and is impossibly egocentric.
But since this is a romantic comedy, Tuck couldn't be left out in the cold - no, there is another woman brought in to save him from loneliness. -
antoniab6 February 2012After seeing the previews, I had already been convinced that I wanted to see This Means War - romantic comedy spy movie - right up my alley. My hubby wasn't similarly convinced.
After getting tickets to an advance screening, we both went - and ended up pleasantly surprised. This Means War was funny, really funny - Chelsea Handler was the hidden gem of the movie.
The movie never took itself too seriously, which was refreshing - it had a few heartfelt moments, but nothing too sappy. It stayed on the side of comedy over romance, and wasn't overly predictable.
There's certainly enough action to keep the guys interested, with enough story to keep us gals entertained. And plenty of laughs for everyone. -
bowmanblue13 May 2014This Means War is the oldest tale: two men fight for the attention of a beautiful woman. However, this time, the two men in question happen to be the new Captain Kirk and the new Bane from Batman and they're vying for the affections of that chick from Legally Blonde. Unfortunately, neither man use phasers, photon torpedoes or terrorist plots to sack an entire city, but they do make for an interesting pair of combatants - namely because they're both best friends who happen to work for the CIA (incidentally, everyone in the CIA looks like a supermodel - you probably didn't know that).
This means that there are gadgets and underhand techniques aplenty in their mission to generally do each other down and stab each other in the back.
This all takes place in a strange world filled with primary colours where everything looks like the inside of a Barbie doll's house (plus in this world a girl who looks like Reece Witherspoon can't actually get a date). There are some brief battles and even a minor car chase to keep the action junkies in their zone, but, primarily, this is a love (triangle) story and, if I'm honest, it's not a bad one.
This Means War is stupid, predictable, dumb, but strangely quite endearing and I found myself even laughing out loud in some places.
I think the film could be described as a 'date movie' as it's a good one to watch with a lady. And, if I ever stop sitting on the sofa watching DVDs and take a girl out, I may just show her this film.
And, just as a side note, why do both leading men look like they're wearing lipstick? Is it just me who thought that?
http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/ -
SteveMierzejewski5 May 2012If you wanted to make a movie that was successful at the box office, you could plug the story lines of the top 25 movies for the last 10 years into a computer and have it generate a plot. It would probably come up with a new genre called the 'romantic action comedy'. It would probably come up with, 'This Means War'. I spent most of the movie trying to figure out who it was targeted for. First, no adult with a few functioning neurons will find the plot compelling. I doubt if women would find the romance unforgettable. I, therefore, concluded that the movie was targeted towards 15 year old boys out on their first dates. Yes, there are the obligatory action scenes with the required number of explosions and car chases, but this is mainly to wake up the 13-year-olds who fell asleep during the 'romantic' scenes. The comedy, and I am stretching the dictionary definition of that word here, comes mainly from the sexual remarks of Chelsea Handler and are directed at the same sleepy 13-year-olds.
It's too bad. I like Reese Witherspoon and, prior to this movie, I had concluded that she was never in a bad movie. Isn't she being offered any better roles than this? It is one of the few movies where you feel sorry for the guy who gets the girl. Actually, by that point in the movie, you really don't care. Yet, the sad truth, the very sad truth is that the movie will probably be a box office hit, a fact that will generate more movies in this genre and keep computer programmers employed for years to come. -
hugowobschall28 February 2012We can just imagine the scene in their agents' offices. "Chris, Tom - we have a lovely movie for you. The audience will love you. This will help establish you both as romantic leads. We need to know you can do romance and comedy. You guys will be wonderful together. It's a beautiful script." Who do we feel more sorry for? Us for watching this drivel or them for having to do the round of media interviews and pretending they have anything remotely interesting to say about this useless crap. I know. I feel sorry for me for being so stupid as to pay money to watch it. At least they got paid for doing it. The joke's on me. What I really want to know is how this got made. What was the actual process from script to screen. How did it get signed off? If the script had allowed the 2 guys to get together in the end at least there would have been something different. A little bit of courage. We are expected to laugh at them using massive resources to spy on a girl they want to get into bed. That's funny? They fight and crash and sabotage. That's funny? This is less funny than 2.5 Men. And that's the least funny show I have ever watched.
-
jjnxn-110 May 2013Cartoony romp has a slick surface but not much underneath. What it does have are three charming actors who work hard to buoy it with their personality and charisma. Tom Hardy and Chris Pine work well together, actually their chemistry with each other is much stronger than either share with their female co-star. Reese is ditsy and sweet but whoever was in charge of her hair should be ashamed, it looks distractingly like straw. The director's roots in music videos are painfully obvious and he does nothing to smooth out the many kinks in the borderline creepy plot. Wasted in nothing parts are Til Schweiger a good actor stuck in a standard villain part that must have been larger in the original script and Angela Bassett, a great actress in a stick figure part that is so far beneath her abilities it's a crying shame. Rosemary Harris is thankfully on hand briefly to brighten a few scenes. Silly and painless you'll forget it as soon as it's over. All involved have made better films and will again.
-
phd_travel23 February 2012Two secret agents who are best friends fall for the same woman.
Read some bad reviews so I wasn't expecting much but it's actually quite funny and a pleasant diversion. There are not too many laugh out loud moments - there could have been more but it's generally cute and amusing throughout. The way they go after Reese is quite amusing and fun to watch the story unfold.
There isn't a whole lot of chemistry between Reese and the leads but it doesn't matter the whole thing is quite farcical not some drama romance comedy combination. Reese is good for this kind of light hearted role - it's her forte. I don't like her in her heavier roles. She looks quite cute still though not beautiful. The male leads are adequate but not ideal. Tom Hardy isn't good looking enough or charming enough. Chris Pine looks like a caricature of himself - has something happened to him? Chelsea Handler as a wisecracking good friend of Reese is okay but not as funny as I'd expect her to be.
There were some scathing reviews that should be discounted. For what it is it's quite pleasant and fun. Just don't expect that much and you'll be okay. -
This Means WAR - CATCH IT (B+) This Means War was better than I had expected. McG's movies are always full of wild action and humor and even this time he doesn't disappointed with slightly fresh cast.
Reese Witherspoon has done tons of comedies so far but this is the first time she showed her sexy side, which we have never seen in previous movies.
The best part of the movie was indeed the bromance between Tom Hardy & Chris Pine, both of them have done a great job in providing great amount of fun & action. the fresh casting with Reese Witherspoon made this movie really enjoyable. So, the trio was awesome but its Chelsea handler's funny one liner which made the whole cinema chuckles. she was tremendous with her jokes as always.
Overall, a complete throttle ride with no dull moment and full on F.U.N. -
markthetranny1 May 2012I saw trailers for this in the cinema and considered going to see it. Thankfully I didn't waste £8 paying for a ticket. The premise for this seemed great- OK reminiscent of True Lies- but there seemed to be potential for comedy and drama. Potential that is sadly never realised. Tom Hardy and Chris Pine are both charming leads (Pine needs to stop doing that chewing with his mouth open thing)Reese Witherspoon is possibly a little old for this kind of role- or at least this kind of role with Hardy and Pine- but she plays the role well enough. The problem is that there is no plot to speak of, very little action and precious few laughs. The film is beautifully lit but the editing is horrible. It reminds the viewer of Quantum of Solace with its action sequences that could be memorable except the viewer can't see what is happening. It doesn't look a cheap film and the cast and premise could have made for something memorable but how could the end result be so unsatisfying. Vapid, bland, predictable and empty its like overdosing on cake icing because there is no cake underneath. All the way through I couldn't help wonder how so much could have gone wrong until as the end credits rolled I saw it was directed by McG . Nothing more to be said.
-
cardaristocrat9 February 2012You may have seen trailers for this terrible-looking romantic comedy about two CIA agents who fight over the same girl. My friend and I attended an advance screening with the expectation that I would hate the movie.
We loved it.
The movie was a delight from start to finish. It was gorgeous, for one thing, and I am not just talking about the actors, although they're gorgeous, too. The cinematography is splendid.
Furthermore, the characters were actually multi-dimensional, including Lauren Scott (Reese Witherspoon), the woman in question. Far from being a trophy, she was smart, competent, and talented, and she had her own issues to work out and her own lessons to learn about love. Although the movie was undeniably more about the men than it was about her, I didn't feel like she was just there to motivate them, which is always a danger in this type of romantic comedy.
The theme of the movie was communicated through her as well as through the men—which brings me to my next point: the movie actually had themes and character development. I typically expect only to be entertained by a comedy, not to be impressed in any intellectual way, but in addition to being nonstop hilarious and occasionally moving, this one was all over proper writing technique.
My friend and I ended up being completely in love with it, and we cannot wait for the official release so that we can share it with all of our other friends and see it again ourselves. -
june_ai19 February 2012This Means War did not get a good rep so naturally, I felt doubtful when I was invited to watch this movie. Alas, my friends had bought me the ticket so I had to go and enjoy the movie with them.
It turned out quite hilarious.
I did not understand why the 'critics' said it was bland, thrilless, laughless, and anything -less in their reviews. I enjoyed the movie very much. It was funny.
Granted, if you watched this for the action sequence (and after watching Haywire the day before), you'd find it a bit faux. A bit too Hollywood. However, just enjoy all the blasts, hi-tech gadgets, and lavish apartments. (I wonder if real agents watched this and told themselves: "Yeah, right"). A spy's life couldn't be that glamour, right?
Although I found more bromance than romance, don't let it be an obstacle to enjoy the movie. Reese Witherspoon is quite funny, a bit pitiful single (and we all bonded over the fact), and quirky as ever. Chris Pine, as the 'rake' type, and Tom Hardy as the 'good-guy-next-door' type. Their interaction was quite good. At least, we believed that we they were best friends. Opposites attract (Tom and Chris, not Reese/Tom or Reese/Chris).
However, even though it was not a GREAT comedy movie. But I did not regret watching it. I might even buy the DVD later. Just sit down, pop some popcorn, and enjoy.
You'll find yourself laughing outloud at most scenes. I believed I was. -
It is interesting to note the review that I read on this film about the writer not understanding why the critics hated this movie when he, and the audience he was with, loved it. Well, while I am not a paid critic or film reviewer, I will have to say that I pretty much hated this movie. I thought the whole concept of two CIA agents abusing their privileges to stalk a girl that they both liked was ridiculous, and the fact that they actually get away with it borders on the really concerning.
I really don't know about the United States, but here in Australia stalking is illegal and can land you up with a gaol term. Also, using resources to check up on somebody for your own personal interests is not only illegal, but unethical. The question that I then ask is whether people's right to privacy have been taken away to the point that if a CIA agent wants to track some woman because of some desire to have sex with her then he can? If that is the case then I guess all of the right-wing conspiracy theorists are actually correct because it seems that nothing is sacred.
Of course there is also the girl whom the director plays as a stereotypical dumb blonde. That, personally, is insulting and to be honest, quite sexist as well. Personally a woman who drags two guys along because she cannot make up her mind as to who she really wants to date is not really a woman that I am interested in. Further, the fact that two friends are at each others throats over a single girl is just pathetic (though I must admit that it does happen). However since she actually chose one of them, thus leaving the (in my opinion) better man out in the cold just wasn't a satisfying ending (even though the better man got back together with his estranged wife).
Okay, you might argue that it is just a movie, but seriously, when has that argument actually held any water? Time and time again I hear people referring to Hollywood movies as lessons in life, right up until somebody like me points out the holes and the flaws in these movies (as well as the incredible moral ambiguity that surrounds them) at which point they simply say 'it is only a movie'. Seriously people, make up your minds. Are you going to use Hollywood movies as moral guideposts because if you are, please don't hide behind the pathetic excuse of 'its only a movie' because if you are, stop using them as moral guideposts. -
dapplegrey1330 January 2012No, it may not change your life or leave you guessing or analyzing, but you'll enjoy a fun night of romance and laughter! We went to an advanced screening last week in Atlanta and we just couldn't have enjoyed it any more.
Incredibly handsome and charismatic Tom Hardy and Chris Pine as the leading men; and adorable Reese Witherspoon as the girl caught between the two of them. There is lots to enjoy and admire. Not too raw, not too profane --just the right amount of naughty and nice! Perfect for a PG-13 film and great for its Valentine's Day release. Be sure to catch it on the big screen. Studies show movies are more fun and more enjoyable with a good crowd and I definitely agree. Take a friend or a date --you won't regret it! "This Means War" is VERY funny! -
Csleazy24 March 2012I will say that i haven't laughed this hard in a while, not since dinner for schmucks at least. The movie is clever and action packed. the kind of action that is funny at the same time. I enjoyed it more because I can actually relate as i know what it is like to be the sidekick to your best friend, and have them irritate the heck out of you and sometimes make you furious but still be best friends either way.(i would be tom hardy in this case) i wont spoil the ending but i was a bit disappointed with who she ends up with. Reese witherspoone is hot as always and chelsea handler is hilarious. its a very good laugh and you'll get your moneys worth.
-
bbwubrant16 June 2012Contains spoilers!
A C movie (watchable once) if the bellow issues are not a deal breaker for you (it is for me).
(Deal breaker summarized, I am not covering all the issues - already too much of a rant)
Movie is horrible; I am writing this comment during the movie. If you have any respect for relationships this movie will crap on that (she is specifies she is looking for the one).
The sick feeling of watching the double dating, "I need to have sex with them to decide which one is "the one"", was mentally impassible to the point that I couldn't enjoy watching the rest of the movie once "gotta catch em both, gotta try them at the same time" began.
Few example gripes (different points):
When Lauren found out that Tuck and FDR knew each other she got indignant and said "This is just a game?, I trusted you!". Seriously, the one double dating two guys that she thought didn't know each other, and she gets mad?
Tuck's ex-wife left him because he wasn't around as a travel agent, so couldn't spend time with the family. At the end of the movie she finds out about his real job and decides to get back together with him, his job has never changed (so the time spent has never changed).
They end the movie with FDR telling Tuck that he had sex with his wife, before she was his wife. But, that Tuck never had sex with Lauren- upholding the gentlemen's final agreement.
Moral to this story, choose the better looking liar who is less of a gentleman and can lay you first, your job title means more than actually who you are or how much time you have and your mistakes happen but everything will be okay if not better because of them.
(1 rating is my opinion, but barring I had no issues with how they dealt with relationships and reasoning I may have had rated it a 5)