This Means War (2012) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
241 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
Eh to no good.
bbwubrant16 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Contains 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)
31 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
juvenile and lazy
Bear Mac Mathun27 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Two 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.
89 out of 114 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An absolute drag of a "date" movie - avoid at all costs
Don Druid10 July 2012
Viciously afraid of women, horribly written, and apparently phoned in by the cast over a weekend or two, this flick tries to satisfy both men and women in the audience through hackneyed appeals to gender stereotypes and ends up being the loudest snooze you'll ever experience.

Men are choked by other men against abandoned strip-club poles (like, gross, Broseph!), makeup-slathered bodies of both sexes are bared in drab, sexless settings, and the main female character is so unappealing as to almost deserve her forced role as a stand-in for the eternal love-hate of two creepy men . . . for each other. (She doesn't actually deserve her mistreatment, of course, any more than the audience does theirs for deciding to watch this trash.)

I'm not kidding about the male-male romance, by the way. The real love story here is between the two male characters. I'm not talking "bromance", either - these men are absolutely obsessed with each other, so much so that they forgo pursuing the girl to cuddle up and watch their hidden-camera movies of her together, late into the night. It's almost sweet, in a frighteningly repressed way.

All of that still makes this movie sound much more exciting and sexy than it actually is. If it helps, "This Means War" is rated PG-13, and that's for gross-out humor, not any sort of nudity. The super-spy plot is an afterthought and merits maybe one-sixth to one-seventh of the on screen "action". Mostly, you'll see Chris Pine and Tom Hardy whining at each other as the camera flies wildly to the left and right.

I could go on and on about its faults, but this movie doesn't deserve it. Mr. Pine must have signed onto this signature-McG travesty before he landed a gig for life as the new nerd-worshiped Captain Kirk, or at least I hope so. He has no excuses now, not with a ticket on that gravy train.

3 out of 10 stars, because as far as I could tell, they didn't accidentally film a boom mike during an action scene or something. Skip this one entirely.
8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Typical Rubbish I would expect from Hollywood
david-sarkies29 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
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.
14 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Why, Tom? WHY?!
Yanzig11 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This 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.
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
God, it stank!
Beauq8124 May 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I'm a fan Reese Witherspoon and Tom Hardy's been making some good performances lately, but this is one movie that they should just write off as poor judgement. And I'm really sorry to say this, because it was a good idea and I certainly hope that someone, sometime in the future will take the idea and make a good movie out of it.

The comedy of the movie was too forced, which, I have to say, has been happening to most of the American comedies. I really haven't seen a truly good and funny American comedy in years.They moved to TV.

I'm trying to find specific things to say what was so wrong, but there was too much of it. Firstly, I don't buy the bromance between FDR and Tuck. You just don't see the closeness they talk so much about. No.2, Chelsey Handler is soooo annoying, I actually hoped she'd die when Tuck blew her tires. The whole movie has just too much talking and talking and talking without saying anything (a good movie for politicians LOL). For me, personally, a good movie is quite the opposite - saying with very little talking (guess that is why Woody Allen annoys me so much).

Actually, the only decent performance came from Til Schweiger and I hoped he'd be the last one standing.

And, one more thing, since I'm from Serbia and can't help mentioning, since Sokolov and Tuck talk in Serbian: Sokolov is not a Serbian name, it's Russian. Russian language is not the same as Serbian language. Serbian people, who speak English fluently, speak it with almost no accent and, if thay do, it certainly doesn't sound Russian. I'm surprised that Mike Dopud messed it up.
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I surrender
SteveMierzejewski5 May 2012
If 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.
62 out of 87 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
This Means Bore
thesar-23 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
How in the hell of war was Katherine Heigl not the lead here? This was HER movie!

Wow it's been a very long time since I've seen such a train wreck on screen. Okay, sure, my track record for higher star'red films isn't great as of late, but damn, Director McG's This Means War has to be one of the worst movies I've seen in a very long time.

Everything was wrong here. One can even go back, before the feature was released to the false advertising of the "ACTION-PACKED, romantic love-triangle" angle. There was more action in the 2-minute trailer than the entire movie. Fine. Was it at least a romantic comedy? Not really, since romantic involves chemistry and comedy ensures laughter.

But I don't judge a movie on the advertiser who should be on trial for perjury. While watching, it became clear that the intent was 99.9995% slapstick comedy and the remainder involved action.

Oh, I said everything was wrong, and only established the genre. Here were some of my thoughts:

  • While the concept is far from original – they weren't trying for Oscars – this "LIE" movie offered zero freshness in the 20,000-year-old plot of "boy(s) lies to get girl during contest boy(s) fall for girl girl learns of lie(s) & leaves boy(s?) get girl to live happily ever after."

  • Reese, a soon-to-be-former favorite of mine was lost, distracted, shallow and phoned everything in. Sad.

  • The dialogue was horrendous, the attempts at humor sad and the connection between the leads lost.

  • The film lacked conviction in the fact it wanted to be raunchy, and even included some(gasp) harsh language!, but it never ever pulled the trigger.

  • One couple thought a 2-minute first date was sufficient and seconds later, the other couple met at a video store? In the present?

  • All characters were despicable, even the secondary ones, leaving NO ONE to root for.

  • The minuscule amount of action was inane, but then again McG.

  • When the better (and that's saying a lot in this mess) scene of a finger-painting sabotage is followed up by an attacking puppet dog, you know the mentality of the writers.

  • The villain has a piece of cloth and uses that to track his new nemesis(s). REALLY?

  • And above all else, the finale was silly, poorly constructed, absurd, incredibly, yet mercifully, short and all-but stolen (from Lethal Weapon 3's PRE-climactic scene. They didn't need to use that scene as their finale, but This Means War ran so far out of steam by that point, they had no other roads to travel, literally.)

Do I have time, or do you care for the synopsis? Two heterosexual males in love with both each other and themselves find time to love the same female and use their CIA jobs to illegally and unethically spy on her while they bet one will land her first without breaking their own non-gay bond.

While I do applaud the men and characters showing that two men, can, in fact, be enormously close without being lovers, they kinda went overboard. I got it: they weren't gay or in sexual love for each other, but move on once established.

This movie was a mess from beginning to end and not funny or original enough to give any kind of recommendation. Skip it.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Narrative Disaster.
xgingerx-169-87615126 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
For some peculiar reason I found myself really wanting to watch this film, and thanks to video store employment benefits, I got to watch it 6 days before It's release date. So as you can understand, I was looking forward to this.

The inclusion of Tom Hardy intrigued me from the start, as I always thought he was better than this film, and what do you know, I was right. From the word go, the scripting was awful, and the jokes were forced and predictable, and all I could think of the entire time, was why did he agree to do this? I never thought much of Witherspoon, or Pine, so they didn't bother me, and in actual fact, Chris Pine generated quite a few laughs, which was more than I expected from him.

However, without Tom Hardy, this film would cannonball. He was the savour, if ever there was one. He made you laugh, but also made you sad simultaneously, because you just wanted to pull him out of this terrible film, and while we're on that subject, kudos to the casting director.

The lack of action, gadgets, humour and well thought out revenge plans are what frustrated me the most, as it's what I expected before I watched the film. None of the above featured in the film, aside from one or two moments from Hardy. The ending of the film when you found out FDR slept with Tucks wife, was just the most unnecessary thing I have ever seen in my whole life, and caused me to end the film in sadness. The film even failed to play the cliché song at the end that persuades the audience they had a good time, depressing me further.

A complimentary 4/10.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews