IMDb > This Means War (2012) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
This Means War
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
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
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 3 of 23: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
Index 225 reviews in total 

8 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Reese, please don't do this again.

Author: mimirado from ca, ca
10 June 2012

OK you guys. I love "bad" movies. Icky sappy cheesy, you name it, I am game. I love Reese, love her to death. But this, this absolutely no doubt is THE worst movie I have ever seen. Painfully bad. Brrrr. Ugh. I'll go to the dentist twice in a day before I see this movie again. Must go watch Legally Blond now. Now. Oh ten lines of text needed. Well let me give it ya. Where do I start, the plot? What plot!? The conversation? What conversation!?. The action? Ha, yeah that, sure. Every single little thing about this movie was so so bad, who the hell thought this could work. Reese did her part, and here are my 4 dollars, but the whole thing felt like something I shot in my back yard with 3 min of preparation. While everybody was drunk. And thought it was really funny. And smart. Until the day after when watching the funny smart tape. And it just wasn't funny. Nor smart.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Absolutely awful

Author: Jam_Man_UK from United Kingdom
3 May 2012

Well there's an hour or two Ill never get back...

What is there to like in this film ?

Plot ? Ridiculous "romantic" comedy, with a really weak bad guy subplot only added to give the film a way of ending.

Characters are all unlikeable and spent most of the film thinking Reese's character was a complete slapper and they should be fighting to get away from her, not be with her.

I really don't see the purpose of the film, it wasn't a feel good rom com, wasn't a thriller or exciting enough for an action film, wasn't funny in anyway.


Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

Complete waste of time

Author: jsorenson777 from Japan
4 May 2012

All of the characters are cool and beautiful (more so than the viewers) and should be envied. Envy is important for the success of this movie.

"Insipid" is the first word that comes to mind. It doesn't work as a comedy or as a comic book. It works only as evidence of devolution of the human race.

Once again we have some special effects which qualify this trash as a legitimate movie. Real movies have special effects.

Depiction of the CIA as a high-tech group of assassins is politically interesting, but there is no moralizing. We are just to accept this as it is -- cool.

500 years ago Leonardo Da Vinci was drawing airplanes and helicopters while painting the Mona Lisa. 500 years later writers and directors are putting out this garbage.

The movie will probably make money - appealing to the masses ("The masses is asses" - Uncle Ward)

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

Staggeringly Bad

Author: hugowobschall from Australia
28 February 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

We 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

Boring - boring - boring!

Author: marc-aurel
7 May 2012

As early as the beginning the film consisted of arduous and designed sequences and dialogs which will fit more a cheap eve-matched series than a movie.

Director McG has shown once again that he should have stayed in advertising or in the production of music videos. In this film his "pop-imagery" came once more to the limits, that directors of many of his kind - without a solid training in screen writing, and the feeling for a professional leading of actors - can not exceed (sorry Mc, you would never become a Guy Ritchie).

To make matters worse, the two main characters were played by the two absolutely talent-free actors Chris Pine and Tom Hardy (teeny-target- -group-beauty does not always matter..)

Against their stiff and stylized play, unfortunately neither Reese Witherspoon nor Till Schweiger could hold against. This would have required a better script than this weak version of one more Spy vs.Spy-theme.

Conclusion: If I want see a CIA-version of "Supernatural" I would wait for the TV-Series. In a movie I expect more than this stupid Teeny-Stuff in the coverage of a romantic thriller... Absolute no need to see!

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

This Means War (2012) - Kill Me Now!

Author: nickmesafilms ( from United States
27 May 2012

Okay, let's try to be realistic on this simple fact! Just because this movie was released around Valentine's Day, and it's filled with funny romance and entertaining action, that doesn't mean that this movie is anything worth your time. Even though this movie was released in February, "This Means War" is one of the worst movies of this or any other year. "This Means War" stars Chris Pine and Tom Hardy as two "best friend" CIA agents, Pine as the hit ladies' man, and Hardy as the desperate single man. Now, it turns out, coincidentally, that both Pine and Hardy has met Reese Witherspoon separately, and they both fall in love with her. Witherspoon plays a single woman, desperate and in need for a man. But guess what? We don't believe that she's desperate for love! There's a scene earlier in the beginning of the movie when Witherspoon is reunited with a former ex, and she acts like a damn 12-year-old girl. So, it's a fight to the death, when both Pine and Hardy fight for Reese Witherspoon's love, without affecting their friendship, until it leads into both sabotaging each other's dates. But what's worse is that they stalk her, invade her privacy, and spy on her! But, you know what, it doesn't matter, because Reese Witherspoon wants to date both of them at the same time!!!! Is this "Jack and Jill" - Part 2? "This Means War" is such a waste of true filmmaking, meaning that it's not funny nor entertaining! The action scenes are completely awful, all choppy and headache-inducing, and it delivers such horrible directing and editing. Also, this movie delivers some of the most shallow, unrealistic, and stupidest characters ever put to film. Chris Pine and Tom Hardy act like two annoying 15-year-old boys, Reese Witherspoon's character is so stupid and unrealistic, and the completely unfunny Chelsea Handler plays Witherspoon's best friend, delivering one of the worst performances in the history of film. The plot is filled with unnecessary plot holes, the jokes fell flat, the directing is incompetent, the writing was horrendous, and the ending was one of the most crappiest endings ever put to film. But what's worse is that if Reese Witherspoon doesn't know that these two guys are fighting for her, behind her back, how about the fact that she doesn't tell one guy about the other? Doesn't that make everybody a liar? Directed by McG, who seems to be giving "the finger" to Michael Bay, "This Means War" is such a headache-inducing, undeniably annoying, completely unrealistic, and terribly unfunny mess that deserves to be one of the worst movies of the entire year so far. "This Means War", in my review, "Childish, annoying, idiotic, and completely unrealistic".

Was the above review useful to you?

16 out of 26 people found the following review useful:

This is a film that consists of nothing at all but noise and shiny things.

Author: francishooks from Ireland
12 May 2012

It is hateful. And it actively hates it's own audience.

Let me explain: one character only wins the love of his son when the boy finds out his Dad is not, in fact, a travel agent (in other words a normal person with a normal job like 100% of the film's audience) but is actually a murdering CIA Operative (like 0% of the film's audience). Thus: normal people are deemed inadequate bovine scum.

Poor old Tom Hardy looks mortified. Sack yer agent, Tom!

This film is so s**t I am halfway convinced it was actually filmed on film stock manufactured from s**t.

I didn't like it very much.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

This means war, honestly means awful.

Author: ironhorse_iv from United States
22 May 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

This Means Bore

Author: thesar-2 from United States
3 March 2013

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Why, Tom? WHY?!

Author: Yanzig from Canada
11 December 2012

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 3 of 23: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [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