IMDb > This Means War (2012) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
This Means War
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
This Means War More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 22:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 216 reviews in total 

75 out of 97 people found the following review useful:

juvenile and lazy

2/10
Author: Bear Mathun from Isle of Man
27 February 2012

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

87 out of 125 people found the following review useful:

Where did it go wrong?

3/10
Author: markthetranny from imdb
1 May 2012

I 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. It makes him look retarded)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.

Was the above review useful to you?

77 out of 112 people found the following review useful:

In ALL that is holy....HOW DID THIS GET A 6.5?

1/10
Author: wolfsbebop from United States
4 March 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I love action movies. I love romance films. What I don't love is Rom/com, barely action movies that make horrible sex jokes over and over again. I don't think it's a spoiler to say that there is a character whose only purpose is to make the same sex jokes over and over again. The action scenes are shot so close and edited so fast that there is no flow to them or any suspense whatsoever. Reese (Where the Heck Have I Been for Nearly a Decade) Witherspoon is set up as just a prize for Tom Hardy and Chris Foster to fight over, nothing else. More on the editing, it jumps around more than an epileptic deer. This movie tries to make it funny for two guys using billions of dollars worth of equipment to spy on each other and their love interest (creepy). McG, fitting name for this low calorie garbage. By the way, if your not convinced yet, McG directed Terminator Salvation, The Charlie's Angels remakes, and We Are Marshall. Don't take anyone to see this unless you want to insult their intelligence. I saw this idiotic movie, hated it, came home, and discovered a video review (too late) bashing it like I just have. If you still don't believe me after I have poured the hatred this movie hath made out of my heart, got to this address. This movie attempts to please the guys and the girls but fails horrendously in both (Film Brain, look him up on Google). O great, now the score's a 6.6. Screw this. ONLY PEOPLE THAT BELIEVE THAT BUGGING THEIR GIRLFRIEND'S IS OK WOULD LIKE THIS MOVIE.

By the way, I'm nominating this piece of cinematic defecation for worst picture of 2012. You listening Razzies.

Was the above review useful to you?

102 out of 165 people found the following review useful:

Just a poor excuse of a comedy

4/10
Author: chrismsawin from United States
17 February 2012

McG hasn't really been seen in the director's chair since Terminator Salvation hit theaters back in 2009. Audiences were split as to whether they actually enjoyed Salvation or not as critics hated it and the movie failed to make back its budget in its domestic gross. So what's the logical next step after doing a movie about the nuclear holocaust and the ongoing war between humans and humanoid machines? You could probably guess the action bit, but the romantic comedy part would probably throw you off.

This Means War is the story of FDR (Chris Pine) and Tuck (Tom Hardy) two CIA agents who are two of the best agents in their field. FDR and Tuck are partners and best friends, but come to a gentleman's agreement when they both start dating the same woman named Lauren (Reese Witherspoon). Both FDR and Tuck begin falling for Lauren and not only begin breaking the rules that they set for one another, but use whatever means necessary to keep Lauren in their good graces.

This Means War throws you right into one of FDR and Tuck's missions right from the start. The main issue becomes how dizzying the camera work is. The action hits extremely hard and is incredibly fast paced, but you have a difficult time actually following just what is transpiring in these quick cuts let alone trying to keep your wits about you. This is kind of odd since I wasn't a fan of Terminator Salvation, but felt like one of its strongest qualities was how the camera always seemed to be in the right place during the action. Maybe McG decided to regress back to his Charlie's Angels mindset for This Means War.

The action heavy romantic comedy is dragged down by annoying girl talk. Lauren and her friend Trish (Chelsea Handler) do nothing but whine and complain about their lives the entire movie while also revealing they're basically the biggest whores around. This Means War paints this picture of women that they all date multiple guys at once and will put out just to try and make a decision. It's pretty demeaning to women in general. Between Lauren and Trish's talks of the size of a man's private parts or a lightning round involving sex, every inch of dialogue between them is unbearable right from the start. Meanwhile, FDR and Tuck have quite a bit of immature bickering between one another as well. It becomes borderline homophobic at times and just feels very third grade for nearly half of the film. The second half becomes a little easier to digest and the highlight comes when FDR mocks Tuck's British accent.

The storyline is very imbecilic, as well. Using the gadgets, technology, and basically every ounce of intelligence of the CIA to try and win over a woman is just asinine. The actual mission, which is certainly more interesting than the love triangle you're forced to endure, isn't even second fiddle. It's more like the third or fourth subplot of the movie. The FDR/Tuck/Lauren love triangle being the primary, FDR/Tuck's friendship falling apart being the secondary, Lauren trying to mull things over with Trish being the third, and Tuck trying to be a stand up family man the fourth. So that would make the actual mission the fifth subplot of the movie. How lame is that? This Means War does get a little less irritating as it progresses. The jokes get slightly less offensive and Tom Hardy still manages to be the best part of the movie. While Reese Witherspoon has to make it a point to try and jiggle around while wearing horrible clothes and singing off key and Chris Pine attempts to be the biggest womanizer he possibly can, they still manage to squeeze in Tom Hardy being a complete bad ass. The paintball scene is one of the highlights, but the most original aspect of the movie comes in one of the first (of many) dates Tuck has with Lauren. He takes her to a carnival and at the end of it takes her on the trapeze. It's actually really cool and would be a really fun first date for anyone.

This Means War is a frustrating and awful excuse for entertainment. Its humor is lame and offensive in the way that it insults all of mankind by how stupid and immature it is, its plot is horrible and insulting, and Reese Witherspoon will test every last ounce of patience you possibly have. This Means War gives you the impression that women are easy and that if you've got enough game then everything works out for the best. While it does have a few moments that try to make up for how terrible it really is, This Means War still can't shake the fact that its spewed excrement into your face for over an hour and a half.

Was the above review useful to you?

139 out of 249 people found the following review useful:

Great movie--Why are critics bashing? An actually funny comedy.

9/10
Author: Shawn Ankersen from tvcinema.tumblr.com
14 February 2012

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) )

Was the above review useful to you?

43 out of 60 people found the following review useful:

Quick and to the pointless..

1/10
Author: Jon Poulter from Sao Paulo
20 March 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Just a quick example to summarise my impressions of this awful nonsense.

Any film where you find yourself inadvertently shouting "die" at the screen, right at the point when the whole cinema goes silent as you wait to see which of the irritating guys the painful Witherspoon will run to to dodge the flying car, hasn't really captured you in its magic.

Predictable, irritating, poorly acted and unbelievable. I actually only laughed at the peripheral actors - the CIA guys working around the edges seemed to remember it was okay to actually be funny in a romcom.

Was the above review useful to you?

56 out of 86 people found the following review useful:

A really bad film

4/10
Author: Argemaluco from Argentina
19 March 2012

Director McG has many (many, many) haters, but I generally like his movies. I don't consider him a "misunderstood genius", nor anything similar; I just generally find his exuberant visual style and frantic energy entertaining. I found Charlie's Angels and its sequel amusing parodies of the action cinema; I liked Terminator Salvation for having found an interesting angle to the franchise; and We Are Marshall...well, that one was mediocre. Anyway, I can't defend McG with This Means War, his most recent film, because it ended up being truly horrible.

The most important problem from This Means War is its screenplay, which I found incredibly weak and predictable (if you don't guess during the first minutes which one of the two gallants will stay with the girl, you haven't seen any romantic comedy in your whole life). The humor lacks of any spontaneity, the jokes are terribly predictable, and the performances are pathetic, specially Reese Witherspoon's, which feels so false and studied that I hated her character even more than the two gallants.

The action scenes lack of any suspense or emotion. There are various fights, chases and explosions, but everything is so uninspired that I wouldn't be surprised if editors Nicolas De Toth and Jesse Driebusch made a confusion with the reels and included in this film scenes from Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Knight and Day, Killers, or any other deplorable "action romantic comedy".

It's easy to note that nobody that worked in This Means War put any effort to it, and that makes it a horrible film which I suggest you to avoid by any means.

Was the above review useful to you?

109 out of 195 people found the following review useful:

Funny and Entertaining!

8/10
Author: Antonia Matthews from United States
6 February 2012

After 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

42 out of 63 people found the following review useful:

I surrender

4/10
Author: SteveMierzejewski from Poland
5 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

Eh to no good.

1/10
Author: bbwubrant from United States
16 June 2012

*** This review may contain 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)

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 22:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history