Project 52: 'This Means War'
Posted Friday, March 8, 2013 at 5:04 PM Central
Last updated Friday, March 8, 2013 at 5:05 PM Central
by John Couture
This is how much I value this project. I am so committed to you the loyal reader that last night in a fit of desperation looking for a film to qualify for Project 52, yes, I did watch a film with Chelsea Handler in it.
Was it the worst thing ever? No, it's certainly not up there with childbirth pain or a really bad paper cut, but it burned and left a stinging sensation this morning that makes me think I should call my doctor.
In the ultimate battle of Kirk vs. Bane, the real winner is you dear reader because hopefully after reading the words that follow, you will be so moved as to never watch this film, thus saving you at least two hours of pain and suffering.
Although, I must say that Reese Witherspoon's body is smoking hot in this film, so you know, if that's your thing and you're currently in between copies of Twilight, This Means War might just be the cure for what ails you. For the rest of us, I'm simply providing yet another valiant public service deed.
You're welcome, either way.
This Means War
Going into the screening, I knew as much about this film as you do. Somehow, two CIA agents start dating the same girl and top secret hijinks ensue.
Beyond that, I also knew that McG was the director, so there was at least a bit of hope that it would be visually stunning enough to keep me awake. Sadly, I was mistaken.
The film played like the dullest shelf of books in your bookcase. There were two really kickass bookends that you probably spent way too much for, but it was worth it to you simply to have the bragging power when your friends came over to visit. Unfortunately, the books between the bookends were the type that you find in the $0.25 box at the white trash garage sale on the wrong side of the tracks. You know what I'm talking about.
In order to prevent being mistaken for the latest Nicholas Sparks weep fest, McG was determined to include a boring, overplayed revenge arc that came in handy when he wanted to turn up the heat at the beginning and end of the film, but otherwise was forgettable and did absolutely nothing other than to stand in for the action part of this action/comedy.
As you'd expect Til Schweiger was laughable as the baddie who is trying to avenge his brother's death, but only makes it to Los Angeles to tie up a loose thread when it's convenient for the story. There's no back story for his character despite the CIA making him such a high priority that they'd send two of their top agents to Hong Kong to take him down.
Basically, he plays an archetype and nothing more. He's there to give the viewers something else to look forward to when the whole set up of two spies dating the same woman runs its course in, oh like 10 minutes.
As to Chris Pine and Tom Hardy, who play the CIA agents involved in a love triangle with Reese Witherspoon, it is some of their worst work ever captured on film. Chris Pine is serviceable as the immature ladies man, but they really only hint at this part of his character and never really delve into it wholeheartedly.
Also, his FDR never fully earns the prize of Reese Witherspoon in my book because he never truly confronts the issues that were stunting his maturation process. They try and explain it all away with one simple trip home to meet his grandparents, but it's stilted at best and they simply give him an epiphany when he turns down a flight attendant at his door looking for a little layover lay, if you know what I mean.
I just have a hard time buying that leap from having true feelings for someone to being ready to settle down and get married. It's too big of a leap to make in my eyes, but I understand why they went in that direction.
As for Tom Hardy, I'd fire whoever told him that he should take this movie. He is beyond impish in the film and worse than that, I couldn't stop comparing him to Stephen Baldwin as the movie progressed. Considering that no Baldwins were in the cast, that tells you to the extent that stunk up the screen.
The one saving grace for his character is his estranged ex-wife played by Abigail Spencer and his young son. Hardy's best moments on-screen are when they are in the picture and when they finally reconcile at the end (which was the most obvious outcome in the film), you only wish that Abigail could have scored more screen time.
I can't really say much for Reese Witherspoon other than she was definitely the rose between these two thorns. I was hoping that she would take the movie to an unexpected conclusion by choosing neither of her flawed suitors, but alas, that would have been too original. Instead, she chooses the impish Chris Pine which, to be honest, I feel is a complete disservice to her character.
But as I said at the top of the review, the real story here isn't her acting, which is quite serviceable when you factor in what she was given to work with, but a reminder that she's still a hot commodity for romantic comedies. The emphasis being on hot.
As much as I hate Chelsea Handler, I can't bag on her too much here as she definitely had all of the funny lines in the film. I think she factored in too much though. As they say, a little goes a long way and that couldn't be more true with Chelsea.
I will point out that there was one cute scene that as someone who works for a video software distributor was near and dear to my heart and that was the video store scene. Chris and Reese meet at a video store and the mutual flirtation as they talk about Hitchcock and other great films is electric.
This scene is about the only one in the film in which I truly felt would fit into a traditional romantic comedy film. It was also very nostalgic as I realized that these types of scenes are becoming an endangered species all their own.
While I love technology, there's nothing like spending an hour browsing through a video store looking at all of the amazing art work. You discover older films that you may have forgotten about or new-to-you films that the friendly clerk might suggest.
Sadly, very few people will discover this film in a video store in 20 years. Well, I guess that's good in that they won't waste two hours of their time, but it does bring a tear to my eye that my kids may never step foot in a video store in their entire lives.
As for This Means War, I feel it's hand that is deceptively bad. It looks like it should win, but actually loses more often than not.
