MovieChat Forums > This Means War (2012) Discussion > San Francisco Chronicle names this Worst...

San Francisco Chronicle names this Worst Film of 2012

posted 12 years ago by aGuiltySoul
11 replies | jump to latest

http://www.sfgate.com/news/slideshow/Worst-Films-of-2012-54527.php#photo-3966908

This Means War: Two CIA agents, competing for the same woman (Reese Witherspoon), start spying on her with sophisticated surveillance equipment, in between leaving the office to go kill dozens of people, something that doesn't faze them in the slightest. The movie was a missive from a horrible place, a still-fictional but possible future world in which bullying is lovable, brutality is sport, and power is free to rampage; in which people are not human but sub-human, smiling, craving veneers without souls. But the creepiest thing about the movie was that no one, either in front or behind the camera, noticed it was creepy. To all concerned, this was just a jolly romantic comedy.

"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."

[–] bron-tay 12 years ago

Ha, I came here to bitch about the sub-humanity of the people (of color) who die in the service of Chris Pine and Tom Hardy's coolness creds. Nice to see someone else noticed.

~~~~~~~
Please put some dashes above your sig line so I won't think it's part of your dumb post.

[–] AcrosstheMersey 11 years ago

Its a romcom, I think they've over analysed and taken it far too seriously

[–] ADFalcano 11 years ago

I agree that This Means War isn't an award worthy movie but it isnt meant to be. It may be a dumb flawed Rom-Com that Reese Witherspoon, Chris Pine, and Tom Hardy's talents were a bit wasted in but it was still entertaining.

No one is more suited for this job than myself...unless it's someone else.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] disturbedtool68 11 years ago

Your facebook page says you love This Means War poya/dubstar.

Stop pretending.

===

All The World's A Stage

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dakoko 11 years ago

Well, they're idiots. It was made to entertain, and it did. If that was it's only value then it was worth it. It didn't have to be anything else~~ and that's the whole purpose of a rom-com.

[–] aGuiltySoul 11 years ago

Read the last two sentences of the critique.

It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it. RIP Roger Ebert

[–] Dextrousleftie 11 years ago

It was shocking garbage. That rom-coms have sunk to these depths does not bode well for them. And the critique was right on that nobody making this slop realized that it was 100%, purely creepy.

[–] dakoko 11 years ago

It was a movie. It doesn't have to be something that would/could/should happen. That's the beauty of it.
It wasn't creepy, it was cromantic. They were fully aware of what it was about and it was done for the entertainment value. I found it light and fun.
I don't always agree with critics anyway. I use my own eyes, heart, and mind.
We don't have to agree and that doesn't make me wrong.

[–] cucuzel1984 9 years ago

I agree, waste of time to watch it. It could have been a cool bromance movie where they discover their friendship is worth more than som cheap skank... But no.. Just dumb and painful to watch..

--There is no spooon