This Means War (2012) Online

2012 Reese Witherspoon Chris Pine Tom Hardy McG

Original Title :: This Means War
Genre :: Movie / Action / Comedy / Romance
Year :: 2012
Directror :: McG
Cast :: Reese Witherspoon,Chris Pine,Tom Hardy
Writer :: Timothy Dowling,Simon Kinberg
Budget :: $65,000,000
Type :: Movie
Time :: 1h 43min
Rating :: 6.3/10

A pair of C.I.A. operatives wage an epic battle against one another when they discover they are dating the same woman.

This Means War (2012) Online

Two CIA agents, Tuck and Frank who are also best friends, have been benched because someone's after them. Tuck is divorced with a son whom he's not close to and Frank is a ladies man. Tuck decides to try and find someone so he places his profile on a dating website. Lauren, a woman also looking for a guy sees Tuck's profile and goes with him. She later bumps into Frank and he hits on her and she goes out with him. She's intrigued by both of them. When they learn that they're dating the same girl, they agree to let her choose. But both can't help but use their skills to keep tabs on her and each other. And also sabotage each other's dates with her.

Cast overview, first billed only:
	Reese Witherspoon	-	Lauren
	Chris Pine	-	FDR Foster
	Tom Hardy	-	Tuck
	Til Schweiger	-	Heinrich
	Chelsea Handler	-	Trish
	John Paul Ruttan	-	Joe
	Abigail Spencer	-	Katie (as Abigail Leigh Spencer)
	Angela Bassett	-	Collins
	Rosemary Harris	-	Nana Foster
	George Touliatos	-	Grandpa Foster
	Clint Carleton	-	Jonas
	Warren Christie	-	Steve
	Leela Savasta	-	Kelly
	Natassia Malthe	-	Xenia
	Laura Vandervoort	-	Britta

Most of Chelsea Handler's lines were ad-libbed, including the mention of Cheetos and Mike and Ike.

Sam Worthington, Colin Farrell, Justin Timberlake, and Seth Rogen were considered for the lead roles, but eventually in the end, Chris Pine and Tom Hardy were cast.

FDR (Chris Pine) calls Tuck (Tom Hardy) about a CHiPs (1977) marathon. Chris Pine's father, Robert, was a cast member on CHiPs (1977).

The bachelor pad of FDR (Chris Pine) had to reflect his expensive and exotic tastes, so the production found a converted penthouse with a swimming pool in the ceiling of the apartment in the Chinatown district of Vancouver, British Columbia. The pool had a glass bottom, making the pool visible from the downstairs dining room. When Production Designer Martin Laing showed the apartment to Director McG, the latter looked up and was astonished to see the pool, and a beautiful girl in a bikini doing laps, which Laing had prearranged.

Both guys, on the singles website on each side of Tuck's picture, are crew members of the movie. They also show up in the video store database as FDR is searching for Lauren's information. The members were Jay Mitchell (Set Design) and Peter Stratford (Assistant Art Director).

The skyline city in the opening scene is not Hong Kong, but Shanghai.

James Franco was offered a role, but declined.

The movie store scene took place at HMV on Robson Street in Vancouver, British Columbia. The HMV stores are now closed.

Bradley Cooper was cast but, dropped out, due to scheduling conflicts.

Director McG revealed during the DVD commentary that Tuck's nickname comes from the character's love of Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Lauren Scott (Reese Witherspoon) and Tuck Hansen (Tom Hardy) first meet at The Blarney Stone, which is a real pub located in downtown Vancouver, British Columbia. It is known to be one of the busiest gastropubs in town.

When the film was submitted to the Motion Picture Association of America, the film was given an "R" rating, due to some racy dialogue spoken by Chelsea Handler's character. It was later edited and given a "PG-13" rating for "sexual content including references, some violence and action, and for language" for the theatrical release.

Making FDR (Chris Pine) and Tuck (Tom Hardy) believable as C.I.A. Agents was tasked to Paul Maurice, a military advisor with extensive wartime experience, who serves as the film's C.I.A. Technical Advisor. Maurice worked closely with Pine and Hardy to give them a high proficiency in weapons-handling and hand-to-hand combat.

Chris Pine and Tom Hardy have both appeared in Zvaigzdziu kelias (1966)-related films. Hardy played Praetor Shinzon in Žvaigždžiu kelias. Atpildas (2002), while Pine played Captain James T. Kirk in Žvaigždžiu kelias (2009), Tolyn i tamsą. Žvaigždžiu kelias (2013), and Zvaigzdziu kelias i begalybe (2016).

Tom Hardy and Chris Pine have gone on to be in film adaptions of Tom Clancy's work. Hardy played Sam Fisher in Splinter Cell and Pine played the title spy character in Tom Clancy's Dzekas Rajanas: seseliu uzverbuotas (2014).

The scene where Trish (Chelsea Handler) and Lauren Scott (Reese Witherspoon) are shopping for laundry detergent, near the beginning of the film, was shot at a Canadian Tire store.

Tuck's real name is listed as "John Harrison" on the dating site. That makes this the first time that Chris Pine clashes with a character called John Harrison in a movie. Pine played Captain James T. Kirk in Tolyn i tamsą. Žvaigždžiu kelias (2013), where he battled with Khan Noonien Singh (Benedict Cumberbatch), who used the alias John Harrison.

The nickname of Franklin Foster (Chris Pine) was "FDR", which is the same nickname of former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. FDR's grandmother reveals his real name to be Franklin. Former U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was commonly known by his initials, "FDR", and this is where the character gets his name. When they are introduced, FDR's grandmother asks Lauren (Reese Witherspoon): "So you're the girl who's keeping Franklin (FDR) busy?" The ending credits list FDR's surname as Foster.

The U.S. theatrical version was cut for some sex jokes to achieve a PG-13 rating. International theatrical versions were released uncut. However, the cut version was used for home video releases worldwide.

Jenny Slate and Tom Hardy are also in Venom

The Beastie Boys song "Sabotage" appropriately features throughout the film whenever the two main characters are sabotaging each other's dates. This is the second of three films starring Chris Pine to use the song as its marquee track: Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek: Beyond (2016) featured the song prominently as a sort of theme for Pine's Captain Kirk.

During the opening scene, one of the ladies asks Franklin "FDR" Foster (Chris Pine): "Permission to come aboard, Captain?" Pine played Captain James T. Kirk in Žvaigždžiu kelias (2009), Tolyn i tamsą. Žvaigždžiu kelias (2013), and Zvaigzdziu kelias i begalybe (2016).

After principal photography had wrapped, Director McG and his teams went to work film editing, music scoring, sound mixing, and putting the finishing touches on the movie's visual effects. Later, during this post-production period, they showed the movie to select audiences to gauge reactions and fine-tune the film. The screenings yielded outstanding scores, which revealed that the movie played to men, women, singles, and couples. This, and the ensuing positive word of mouth, led the Twentieth Century Fox movie studio to pick the unexpected 2012 year release date of Valentine's Day, which falls on February 14, which was a Tuesday. Most films debut in the U.S. on a Friday, in time for the weekend. But for McG, the holiday release seemed perfect. He pointed out: "After all, everyone needs a little action on Valentine's Day!"

Production Designer Martin Laing and his team upped the spy-against-spy action by devising gadgets utilized by FDR and Tuck as they wage war against one another. Laing's team researched C.I.A. weapons and surveillance techniques and made them even more high tech and fantastic.

Trish (Chelsea Handler) calls Lauren Scott (Reese Witherspoon) from a children's play center, which is a real place called "Crash Crawly's". It is located near a freeway, which can be seen through the windows.

Director McG said: It will come as no surprise that Pine and Hardy handled the high-octane spy action and stunts with skill and daring. But Tai reiškia karą (2012) audiences will see a movie "first": Reese Witherspoon mixing it up with the boys in full throttle action mode. Not only does she get to drive at excessive speeds on a military racetrack in a drop-head coupe, she flew on a swinging trapeze, and donned a mask and firearm for an intense, ruthless game of paintball. "By the end of the movie, Reese is at the center of the action."

In one scene, FDR (Chris Pine) asks Tuck (Tom Hardy): "What are you, Garry Kasparov?" Garry Kasparov is one of the greatest chess players of all time but there is another chess reference in the movie as one of the criminals is named Ivan Sokolov. Ivan Sokolov is a chess grandmaster from Netherlands (born in Bosnia and Herzegovina) who was Kasparov's teammate when Chess Club Bosna Sarajevo won the European title.

The home address of Lauren Scott (Reese Witherspoon) according to the character's tax return seen in the movie was 6226 Placido Drive, Pasadena, California, 91105.

This spy film inverted a common paradigm of the James Bond movie franchise where the character frequently had two significant relationships with two Bond Girls in many Bond movies. This was commonly reflected in movie posters for Bond films where the tuxedo clad character would be seen positioned between a Bond Girl on either side. This movie reversed this methodology by having a character, a non-spy, Lauren (Reese Witherspoon), who is the equivalent of a Bond Girl, and dates in the movie two secret agents, and in film posters for the movie was seen positioned standing in the middle between the two attractive male spies.

Reese Witherspoon and Chris Pine appeared in A Wrinkle in Time (2018).

Tom Hardy portrayed a character, Tuck Harrison, who had the same "T.H." initials as his own.

Director McG previously helmed the espionage-action-comedy movies Carlio angelai (2000) and Griausmingieji Čarlio angelai (2003), and also helmed the action-spy-thriller-drama 3 Days to Kill (2014). As such, McG has directed four spy movies (to date, September 2018).

Intelligence agencies referenced and/or featured in the film include the C.I.A., Interpol, Special Ops, the Mexico Sniper Squad, and the Mexican D.F.S. (Dirección Federal de Seguridad a.k.a. the Federal Security Directorate).

Actress Chelsea Handler (Trish, the good friend of Lauren (Reese Witherspoon)), has a last surname which is a spy term. A "handler" in the secret spy world, as defined by the Spy Museum's Language of Espionage, is "a case officer who is responsible for handling agents in operations."

The name of the company, for which Lauren Scott (Reese Witherspoon) worked, was "Smart Consumer, Inc.", which was located in Los Angeles, California

This movie features the game of Paintball, which was utilized in a training exercise at the start of the James Bond movie I dienos šviesą (1987). This movie premiered in theaters in the 25th Anniversary year of I dienos šviesą (1987).

In one scene, FDR is watching the 1997 film Titanic. The director of photography of this film, Russell Carpenter, was also the director of photography on Titanic, and he won an Oscar for Best Cinematography on that film. Also, this film was released in the year 2012, and the 1997 film was re-released in theaters in 3D this same year to commemorate the centennial of the Titanic's sinking in 1912.

An alternate ending was shot with Lauren Scott (Reese Witherspoon) ending up with Tuck Hansen (Tom Hardy).

Another alternate ending was shot where Tuck and FDR are holding one another while Lauren is by herself on the uncompleted freeway.

User reviews

Modimeena

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?

Dancing Lion

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.

NI_Rak

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)

Micelhorav

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.

Doktilar

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.

Pemand

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.

Arthunter

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.

Goodman

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.

Connorise

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.

Flocton

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.

Dynen

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.

Ienekan

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) )

Der Bat

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.

Grokinos

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.

Xig

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.

Ramsey`s

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.

Beydar

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

Gavirgas

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.

Use_Death

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!

Karon

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.

Garr

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!

Ygglune

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.

Kagrel

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.

Ynap

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.

Hugighma

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...

Categories

Related Videos

This Means War (2012) Online

User reviews