Film Festival

Review: Chris Pine and Tom Hardy make the most of the slight 'This Means War'

Does McG automatically equal evil as many critics claim?

  • Critic's Rating C+
  • Readers' Rating B+
Review: Chris Pine and Tom Hardy make the most of the slight 'This Means War'

Tom Hardy, Reese Witherspoon, and Chris Pine star in the new action/comedy 'This Means War'

Credit: 20th Century Fox

Are you a fan of Motion Captured?

Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.

I wonder what would happen if they showed this movie to critics without McG's name on it.

Certain directors become punching bags over the course of their careers, and it's not always just because of their filmmaking.  In the case of McG, his name does not help him at all, no matter how many times he explains it was a childhood nickname.  It also doesn't help that he's incredibly earnest when he talks about his work, and that there's a hard-earned defensiveness as well.  He came to make a presentation at BNAT the year before his "Terminator: Salvation" came out, and by the end of his appearance, he'd turned a fair percentage of the audience against him.  As he left, someone in my row commented, "McG was going to stay longer to talk to us, but he had to get back to The Learning Annex to teach his 'How To Be A Douchebag' class."  He talked an entire room full of people out of being excited about his movie through sheer force of personality.

The thing is, nothing he's made really deserves that level of animosity.  He's not technically incompetent.  He has a music video pop sensibility that isn't especially deep, but he knows how to stage action and he's got a big broad sense of humor.  When I hear people refer to someone like McG as the worst of modern filmmaking, it makes me think that they don't see many films, or that they've got him prejudged to such a degree that they don't really see his films when they watch them.

"This Means War" has the added extra edge of being a romantic comedy, a genre that is largely reviled by critics.  My own viewing of the film was complicated by a truly horrific audience member, but what I noticed in the comments from many of you was a general attitude of "Well, at least it was just a terrible movie," and I'm willing to bet that most of the people leaving variations on those comments haven't seen the movie yet.

I do everything I can to walk into every movie with as blank a slate as possible.  In this case, I was more aware than normal of how much disdain was focused on the picture, and that made it harder to shut all of that out.  Once the film began, though, one thought kept occurring to me:  "What's everyone so upset about in the first place?"

"This Means War," with a script credited to Timothy Dowling and Simon Kinberg, is the story of two CIA agents whose long-standing partnership is threatened when they both find themselves falling in love with the same woman.  Chris Pine plays FDR, and Tom Hardy plays Tuck, with Reese Witherspoon starring as the woman who comes between them.  The film plays as heightened reality from the very start, when we see FDR and Tuck on the job.  This is spy cinema in a post-Bond world, with everything cranked all the way up, and it looks exactly the way you'd expect it would look from the director of "Charlie's Angels."  It's a pop cartoon, and it's calorie free, and it's kind of fun.  There's nothing about the spy side of things that is meant to be consequential, though.  This isn't a hard-hitting political piece, and it's not meant to be.

Instead, the spy side of things is simply a backdrop against which the love story takes place, and it gives Pine and Hardy an excuse to play rough when they start to compete for Witherspoon's affections.  That's really what the film is about, and it's a chance to externalize these feelings that romantic rivalry brings out in a very big and ridiculous way.  It's an absurd premise, and they tie themselves in knots to figure out a way to bring Pine and Hardy and Witherspoon together so that nobody is the overt "bad guy," but once you accept that central premise, the film has a light, casual ease to it.  It is confident at what it's doing.

So… is it good?  There are certainly things I liked about it.  Chris Pine is fascinating to me.  In "Star Trek" and in this film, he's building this very particular comic persona that I don't think anyone else is doing right now.  He looks like the MAD magazine caricature of himself, all pronounced brow and hyperblue eyes and this giant head, and he has a ridiculous confidence that he mines for laughs instead of cool.  Tom Hardy deserves credit for pushing his own persona in a very different direction with his work here.  We're getting used to seeing him as the jacked-up animal, and I'm guessing that will be true of this summer's "The Dark Knight Rises" as well.  Here, he's the sensitive one, even though he's still at maximum density.  He sort of reminds me of the unique presence of Oliver Reed, who you could describe as a "dainty ape."  Hardy and Pine both are almost surreal the way they're shot here, and I give McG credit for realizing this is meant to be fantasy for all the ladies in the house.  Reese is the one with all the options, and in a movie where she's the third prettiest person in the cast, it's obvious whose fantasies are being most clearly indulged here.

Til Schweiger plays the bad guy in the film, and that's pretty much all there is to his character.  He is "the bad guy," and he's got one or two scenes where he gets to glower, but again… this movie's pretty profoundly unconcerned with the spy business.  Angela Bassett is equally wasted as the CIA director who both Pine and Hardy answer to.  Chelsea Handler shows up as Trish, Witherspoon's best friend, and she's basically playing the archetype that is normally played by a dude, the wise-ass extra-dirty Greek chorus.  I'm not a fan, but she does what she was hired to do.  That's kind of the way the whole film works.  People do what they were hired to do, they do it well, and it all just kind of flies by painlessly.

Basically, check out the trailer for the film.  If it's even remotely appealing to you, that's the film.  They aren't remotely misleading anyone.  I find the demonization of McG to be a little ridiculous, and I give him credit for the casting of Pine and Hardy and giving them room to have fun with their own images, and for the sly (yes, I just accused McG of being sly) way the film tweaks the typical gender roles in Hollywood romantic comedies.  "This Means War" isn't going to stick with me, but it's a pleasant diversion, which is all it means to be.

Can't really complain about that.

"This Means War" opens Friday.

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    FranklynStreet

    This looks a lot like Mr. and Mrs. Smith, a film I absolutely loathed because it had zero substance. It was an exercise in stylish pointlessness, and had no reason for occupying the film it was printed on. I actually don't have much of a problem with McG. I'm not saying I've loved any of his films, but I almost feel a little bad for him the way he's so maligned by a certain portion of the movie-going public. Still, I can not stand movies about people cheating on other people. And that seems to make this movie one step worse than the vapid Mr. and Mrs. Smith. I realize that Witherspoon's character isn't in a full-blown relationship with either of these guys, but the way she's so brazenly being narcissistic and non-committal makes me a little sick from the trailer alone. And the insanely annoying Handler barking about Gloria Steinem and encouraging her to two-time both of these guys doesn't help. I actually think there would be even more of an outcry against this film if the gender roles were reversed and it was a guy playing both women; this way the producers can appeal to the male audience with the action and the female audience with this fantasy of gender empowerment and ego stroking at the expense of, you know, actually being a caring human being and treating the people you're dating with some basic dignity and respect. Blech. The whole concept just turns my stomach, and it's such a calculated little piece of cinema marketing, and again, it looks to have absolutely no substance to it. I'm going to be staying away from it, but it looks to me like most audiences won't have the same problem. Again, sorry to hear about your horrible audience experience on this one, Drew. I'm not sure how you were able to pull a review together with all of that going on. Who knows, perhaps if you were watching the movie more closely you would have liked it even less, instead of simply finding it to be harmless vapid escapism.

    February 15, 2012 at 8:13PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      DefRef >"This looks a lot like Mr. and Mrs. Smith, a film I absolutely loathed because it had zero substance"

      Stopped reading right there because you clearly can't comprehend anything but your own rage as evidenced by your refusal to yield to basic readability conventions like paragraph breaks. Like this...

      Simply put, people who dismiss/hate on Mr. and Mrs. Smith as empty flash or "that movie where that tattooed whore stole Rachel's husband" are vapid twits who were incapable of understanding what the film was about: How a crumbling marriage is saved by taking interest in your spouse's interests.

      John and Jane Smith's marriage is in a rut because their secret lives leave them with little to share together. Once they realize that they're more alike than different, they are able to solidify their relationship to rise and defeat the forces who are arrayed to kill them AND the one they love.

      People who can't understand the true theme of the movie should stick to Uwe Boll flicks.

      February 15, 2012 at 10:30PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      CinemaPsycho While I disagree with him on Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Franklyn's reading of This Means War seems dead-on to me. I actually like Witherspoon, Pine and Hardy, but those TV ads make me ill and seem to be designed to actively turn off anyone of even moderate intelligence. If I were one of these guys and I found out Chelsea Handler was her best friend, I would say, "You can have her." Surely neither of those guys are so desperate for female attention that they would need to enter into such a ridiculous competition for any woman.

      Here's a paragraph break: I don't necessarily hate McG (though I absolutely despised Salvation) but I wouldn't be caught dead paying to see this, because it looks like rancid, superficial crap. I wouldn't go see this even if Martin Scorsese made it.

      February 16, 2012 at 3:22AM EST
    • Dezref, if you need a paragraph break after every sentence to break things up into such tiny bites for you to be able to comprehend a comment and not otherwise view it as having "basic readability," then I can see how these empty vapid movies would appeal directly to you.

      And no, the fact that in Mr. and Mrs. Smith their marriage was "saved" because they stop hiding their lives from each other didn't do a lick to help make the movie less vapid or brainless; simply having a theme doesn't necessarily make a movie interesting or watchable when it's as obvious and ham-fisted as the rest of it.

      Simple is as simple does.

      Durrrrrrp.

      And Cinemapsycho, I like all three of the actors as well, which makes the project all the more disappointing. It's obvious that Pine and Hardy took it because they're building their careers and it's a stepping stone for them, but Witherspoon, on the other hand, seems to be making increasingly bad choices of late.

      February 16, 2012 at 9:14AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      CinemaPsycho Also, I wanted to add that McG produced Chuck, one of my favorite shows of the last decade (and directed the awesome pilot), so I find it difficult to hate the guy based on that alone.

      February 17, 2012 at 2:52AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Athaleah05

    In a world with tons of serious movies like "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" "The Tree of Life" and "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" (all amazing movies) it is nice to give your brain a break from all the intensity and lighten up a little with movies like this. I watched it and enjoyed Handler and Hardy's performance more than anyone else. It's not Oscar worthy obviously, but if you are looking for a feel good and humorous movie to sit back and enjoy without trying to figure out annoying plots, this is it. Simple but enjoyable.

    February 15, 2012 at 8:36PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Chrissy

    I was one of the "at least you missed a crapfest" people, and I have seen the movie. I thought it was terrible. The premise is offensive (nothing says love like letting your coworkers watch a video feed of your lady friend having sex) and artlessly executed, the tone is all over the place (there's two dates scenes that feel like deleted scenes from There's Something About Mary, while the rest vacillates between overly sincere "man learning to love" and "sex and the city light". Tom Hardy, who I've found incredibly charming in other films, vanishes into the background. You could literally put any other well-built actor who is shorter than Chris Pine in his role, and no one would know the difference. There are few laughs (Chelsea Handler gets a few mildly smirky line readings, and there's one funny music cue). There's another offensive subplot about the importance of seeing your father use violence to solve problems in a young boy's development.

    When I left the theater I just disliked the movie, but the more I think about it the more I really despise it. Chris Pine does make the most of it, I'll give you that. And I liked the uber-bright color scheme of Reese's office. But that's all I can say for it. I almost wonder if a more tonally consistent dark comedy was originally written and then made more "broadly appealing" (she said sarcastically).

    Seriously, don't see this movie.

    February 15, 2012 at 9:10PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Chrissy And just as an addendum, I have no particular feelings about McG and didn't even know he directed it until the credits rolled.

      February 15, 2012 at 9:14PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Cody B

    If everyone was as level headed as the Drew, the world would be an amazing place. Bravo sir, bravo.

    February 15, 2012 at 9:26PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Chris

    Well, I do think McG is kind of like the poor man's Brett Ratner. But I don't hold his pedigree against him. I thought Terminator: Salvation looked good, so I saw it. I thought this didn't look good, so I won't.

    It gets on my nerves a little bit when people use the "what if you didn't know so-and-so made this movie?" argument, or "what if you thought David Fincher made this movie?" Because the bottom line is a good director WOULDN'T make this movie. Which isn't to say that McG is a terrible director, but he generally doesn't make things I want to see.

    February 15, 2012 at 9:46PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      DefRef I tend to use the inverse formulation: "If this movie was made by some unknown and not [name of legendary respected filmmaker here], no one would be praising it."

      Mostly it gets attached to Martin Scorsese as he got pity-f*cked an Oscar (finally - it's like Al Pacino winning for Scent of a Woman) for the thoroughly pedestrian The Departed and being lauded for the stunningly craptastic Shutter Island which has a typo in the first word as they missed the I.

      February 15, 2012 at 10:34PM EST
    • Fun-fingers-5mugzy-1_talkback_profile

      mmcb105 I'm pretty sure Brett Ratner is the poor mans Brett Ratner

      February 16, 2012 at 4:29PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Chris That was the joke...

      February 16, 2012 at 4:35PM EST
  • Annie8bit_talkback_profile

    Stormshadow4life

    McG is not the worst modern (successful) film maker...that would be Michael Bay. And as for Ratner, Family Man is one of my favorite movies ever...one we watch every Christmas (also, Red Dragon was far better than Hannibal).

    February 15, 2012 at 11:07PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Logo Lou Completely agree. Ratner and MCG have made some crap, no doubt, but they are nowhere near as bad as Bay. Bay gets more a a pass at times, probably just because his films have made more money, but they are indeed horrible, and making everything look like a bear commercial doesn't make one a visual artist.

      February 18, 2012 at 11:16AM EST
  • A_monty_talkback_profile

    Monty Jack

    Am I the only one who really liked Terminator: Salvation?

    February 15, 2012 at 11:26PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Cody B Nope. I loved that movie. It was a lot of fun.

      February 16, 2012 at 1:33AM EST
    • Jason_talkback_profile

      Mandrake1979 the ending was horrible(it did not and would not be possible). Basically it could have been better, it did have some good moments but they were outweighed by the terrible decisions. The casting of Bryce dallas howard just kills any movie.

      February 16, 2012 at 6:31PM EST
    • Yodachilliresize_bigger_talkback_profile

      BigAl6ft6 I liked it quite a lot, too. Although, I think it's a shame they made a future war movie without having Connor send Terminators back in time at the end. Missed opportunity & all that.

      February 18, 2012 at 9:57PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Just Drawn That Way

    “The thing is, nothing he's made really deserves that level of animosity.”

    You see, for me Charlie’s Angels does deserve that level of animosity. I hated that movie so much I’ve actively avoided everything produced, directed or starring any of the major players involved. Which is not to say they couldn’t have done good work since then. That’s entirely possible but dear god I hated that movie.

    February 16, 2012 at 12:11AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Cody B Totally disagree. I LOVE that movie. I thought it was an amazing blend of comedy and action. And the Angels were phenomenal together. Now the sequel on the other hand...

      February 16, 2012 at 1:41AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    dustin hiser

    I found the trailer amusing. I'll go see it with my folks.

    February 16, 2012 at 12:14AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Bradley Valentine

    While I am not impressed with much anything McG has done, I can’t help but to like him. And I like his sensibilities. And I think I might end up really liking this film. Anyone who can help Supernatural come to life has to be someone special.

    February 18, 2012 at 4:39AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Barry Convex

    Drew, Drew, Drew. The lovely Reese is third prettiest? That's almost as cutting as the photo caption you did for your "Water For Elephants" review.

    February 18, 2012 at 12:02PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Desi

    for me, this is like the movie version of Chucck. Chuck Bartowski vs Bryce Larkin to win Sarah Walker....

    February 18, 2012 at 2:42PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Yodachilliresize_bigger_talkback_profile

    BigAl6ft6

    Yeah, this movie does not deserve the venom being sprayed at it. It's not a Mr & Mrs. Smith or a True Lies, which are much more fun and accomplished spy / romantic comedies, but it's fairly breezy and even though it overloads on some cliches, other parts are gold. I think the best stuff in the movie is right in the middle, which is odd because for most flicks that's where things sag, where the two are trying to screw each other over on their respective dates with spy gear.

    It's not a great movie, but there's some fun stuff here and certainly not worthy of the disdain being shot at it at all.

    February 18, 2012 at 9:44PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Yodachilliresize_bigger_talkback_profile

      BigAl6ft6 Basically, in summation, it's incredibly difficult for me personally to actively dislike a movie where one buddy stops the other guy from getting nookie by shooting him through a window with a tranq gun.

      February 18, 2012 at 9:55PM EST
  • Annie8bit_talkback_profile

    Stormshadow4life

    Only liked one McG movie ever, and that was Family....though a case could be made for Charlie's Angels.

    February 19, 2012 at 12:38AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Puss_in_boots_320_talkback_profile

    JedyKnight

    Funny thing happened, since i didnt read any advance reviews (from the cast & the trailer i knew it was going to be a good date night choice) so i didnt know it was a McG film until the end credits, and my reaction didnt change.. It was a fun movie to enjoy with my gf. Lots of action and comedy but not too much of either.. It's not going to be a classic but has a rewatchable quality for when it makes its way to cable tv.
    Personally i think McG is a Dbag, but im not prejudiced against his work, i do think sometimes he can be too flashy with too little actual content, but i appreciatte how he has an active imagination plus has been associatted with a lot of product i have enjoyed (The OC, C.Angels 1, Chuck, Supernatural, Nikita, Human Target, etc).
    In short, it has a vibe of True Lies, Mr & Mr Smith and Chuck, so whoever like all of those, will certainly enjoy this, even if McG directed. :)

    March 10, 2012 at 1:46PM EST Reply to Comment
Drew McWeeny

About This Blog

Los Angeles has changed since 1990, and Drew McWeeny, all-around Chauncey Gardner of movie fandom, has seen it all as an industry insider and screenwriter who wrote for 12 years as "Moriarty" for Ain't It Cool News.

Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook