This Means War (2012) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
244 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
2/10
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 116 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
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 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Where did it go wrong?
markthetranny1 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)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.
112 out of 167 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
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 90 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
OK not great
v-ley10 July 2016
It 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.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Quick and to the pointless..
Jon Poulter20 March 2012
Warning: 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.
50 out of 74 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
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 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
Just a poor excuse of a comedy
chrismsawin17 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.
115 out of 193 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
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.
11 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
A really bad film
Argemaluco19 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.
66 out of 107 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Silly premise still results in a smart, funny romantic comedy
mrnunleygo6 December 2016
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?
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Great movie--Why are critics bashing? An actually funny comedy.
Shawn Ankersen14 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) )
163 out of 291 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
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 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Meh
jacko113410 March 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.
34 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Funny and Entertaining!
Antonia Matthews6 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.
120 out of 218 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
As ridiculous as it gets, this McG live-action cartoon with unfunny lines and terrible action wastes the great bromantic chemistry of its lead stars
moviexclusive16 February 2012
McG must have watched one too many cartoons when he was a kid- how else will you explain his obsessive love for them? After venturing into more mature territory with the inspirational sports drama 'We Are Marshall' and the sci-fi thriller 'Terminator: Salvation', the director is back making live-action cartoons in the vein of his 'Charlie's Angels' duo- logy, and 'This Means War' sees him at his most indulgent. Indeed, there is nothing that can be taken seriously about this loud, preposterous and utterly logic-less action comedy that requires that its audience to check every brain cell at the door just so they can watch two handsome hunky CIA agents go at each other to win the affections of the same girl.

That is the only catch of this lazily plotted movie from Timothy Dowling and Simon Kinberg- the former an actor turned writer who sadly demonstrates little of the subversive cleverness from his earlier 'Role Models' nor the broad but nonetheless inspired hilarity of 'Just Go With It'; and the latter an experienced hand at the genre (responsible for the studio's earlier hit 'Mr and Mrs Smith') enlisted to polish the banter and distract the audience from the glaring plot-holes. Neither writer tries hard enough, and without a solid well-grounded script to rein in McG's fluffy excesses, the result is a 'Smith' wannabe without the entertainment.

To be sure, a film like this is always going to be as good as its individual gags, and so to trick you into the theatre, the trailer showcases the best the film has to offer. Remember the one where Agent Tuck (Tom Hardy) shoots a dart right into Agent FDR's (Chris Pine) neck so he falls fast asleep just before he is about to bed the girl Lauren (Reese Witherspoon)? Or the one where Lauren accidentally shoots a paintball at Tuck's crotch while attempting to discharge its triggering mechanism? Trust us, these individual sequences in the movie don't go beyond what the trailer already shows, so you're not really missing anything more.

The banality of the rest of the movie is only made more apparent by the one-note characterisation. Tuck and FDR are both good-natured sensitive guys equally eligible, while Lauren is the pretty attractive girl with no luck at love. Then just to add in a shade of raunch because 'Bridesmaids' showed there was a place for girls to be talking dirty, Lauren has a perpetually horny best friend Trish (Chelsea Handler) whose only purpose is to goad Lauren to have sex with Tuck and FDR. At no point do you care if Tuck or FDR get the girl, simply because either guy is just as shallowly drawn.

Ditto for the tired banter between Tuck and FDR, scripted without the wit nor the punch of Kinberg's 'Smith' or 'Sherlock Holmes'- in fact, the most memorable line is delivered by a fellow agent who tries politely to tell Tuck the night after FDR beds Lauren that the latter had 'entered the premises'. Fortunately, there is genuine bromantic chemistry between the two actors Pine and Hardy, both of whom do their best with the trite material that doesn't do justice to their heretofore-unknown sharp comedic timing.

Against their natural bromance, Reese Witherspoon ends up regrettably nondescript, giving as little as the script demands of her. That the romance between Lauren and Tuck or FDR doesn't ring true is not entirely the actress' fault however- for some inexplicable reason, the script has them falling in love over a private trapeze session at an amusement park and a private showcase of Gustav Klimt masterpieces at some warehouse. Granted that a suspension of belief is de rigueur for most movies, but the leap of logic this McG live-action cartoon demands is just too absurd.

And don't get us started about the poorly conceived action sequences that are so badly choreographed it's no wonder they are over before you know it. We're not just talking about over-the-top, but absolutely head- scratching nonsense that turns the pair of CIA agents into superheroes who pretty much emerge unscathed- except for some cuts- from every supposed life-endangering situation. Even with the paucity of such sequences (we count only three in total), McG can't even get the climax right- and a high-speed chase that ends on a dead-end freeway ramp is so laughably shot it goes in the running for the worst action sequence of the year.

Whether as action or as comedy, this mishmash of a buddy picture, spy thriller and rom-com fails in every regard. We can accept a movie that doesn't take itself seriously, but one that disregards every ounce of logic ultimately causes its audience to pay little attention to it as well. Like we said, it's really another one of McG's live-action cartoons- how else really can two spies use the full resources of the CIA to spy on a personal subject without anyone raising any alarm- and it is as juvenile as its titular claim that two guys fighting over one girl could really mean war.
42 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Why This Movie Is Vile
ssinberg-295-31732818 February 2012
Really? You people who give this a good review weren't creeped out about two guys who barely know this woman breaking into her house, planting bugs, spying on her every move (in every room?) Or getting the CIA (to which they very unconvincingly belong) to use vast resources to illegally track her? Who do you root for in this movie? Me, I was rooting for the bad guys to slowly dispose of them in a vat of acid after poking them full of holes, so the acid would hurt more. Aside from that, the characters act like love-struck teen-agers (sorry teen-agers), the action scenes are totally unbelievable (walking up, unguarded, to a trio of assassins guns a-blazing at you, with only a handgun), and oh, don't get me started. Pay attention to what the characters are actually doing, instead of just liking them because you're 'supposed' to, and you'll totally be turned off. If you're female, think of how you'd react to a guy you dated once or twice breaking into your home and spying on you. End of story.
43 out of 74 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Abysmal OR one gal's confused ladybrain is another man's pitiful excuse for a rom-com
AshleyDenise21 February 2012
First, she's a lonely gal with a great job. Then SUDDENLY, she's irresistible to two incredible hotties? Nonsensical.

If that weren't enough to turn you away: the dialog is forced and nonspecific, the chemistry is nonexistent, Witherspoon phones it in. There's also a plot "twist" anyone could spy a mile away.

And if part of you is thinking "well, hey at least it's sort of progressive and enlightened to have one woman dating two men instead of the typical reverse," stop. I'd venture 75% of the film is Witherspoon blabbering about how her ladybrain can't handle being with two (soooo wonderful and handsome and blahblahblah) men. Ladybrains, can't live with 'em, can't make basic decisions in life with them. I mean, right?!*

*not right
74 out of 135 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Funny fun time. Entertaining valentines release.
shaidarharan2 February 2012
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.
61 out of 110 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Boring - boring - boring!
marc-aurel7 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!
14 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Absolutely awful
Jam_Man_UK3 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.

Avoid...
11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Terrible
kewlcow334-530-36235515 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I thought this was a terrible movie. The wrong guy definitely won (the jerk) AND I don't see why you have to have 10 lines minimum for a submission either. I'm pretty sure a one line comment is enough to accurately describe a stupid movie: "This means war" is a prime example of a stupid movie. The fact that they have to warn people about filling in their comments with fluff should tell you something... hasn't IMDb heard of the K.I.S.S principle. If not, they should do some research. The world is a much better place when people keep things simple. Here, if my one line HIGHLY ACCURATE review of the movie isn't enough, I'll add slightly more to fill in the RIDICULOUS ten lines minimum. Girl meets boy- boy is a gentleman. Girl meets another boy. This boy is a jerk. Both boys know each other, but girl doesn't know that. Girl finds out both boys know each other, and instead of doing the logical thing-walking away b/c BOTH are liars, and instead of picking the lesser of two evils (since the movie is based on having to chose), she chooses the jerk. Hopefully this is enough of a description of a movie that could be summed up in one word: TERRIBLE!
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Staggeringly Bad
hugowobschall28 February 2012
Warning: 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.
13 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Disappointing
Aman Zaidi5 August 2012
I should have gone by the User Rating of this movie. Usually I try not to watch anything that has a rating of less than a 7, but I have been surprised on occasion. I watched Funny People that had a rating of 6.5 & I thought I might try this one too. But while Funny People actually had a few laughs, this one left me bewildered. It's pretty juvenile actually, more suited to an audience of 18 to 23 year olds at best.

The track of the villain that runs in the background is a waste. Nor is there any real point in the main characters being CIA agents, apart from the surveillance. This movie could have been any other movie about 2 friends competing for the affections of a girl. It hackneyed, and it's utterly, utterly predictable. The writers and the director could have employed some creativity & vision to rescue such a banal premise, but they didn't.

I looked up the director after watching this. McG's work, apart from We Are Marshall has been consistently impotent, as has the work of the two writers.

Very disappointing. It doesn't deserve the misleading 6.4 user rating that it's has currently.

This movie is a MUST AVOID.
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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