Because it's a stupid piece of shit. I mean, who other than a couple of blind guys would want to fight over this ugly, nasty bitch who is a good 5 years older than either of them?
"Fox is waving the white flag on what is supposed to be a worth-the-price-of-admission movie which in and of itself is a rarity these days. The studio was supposed to open its ‘romantic action comedy’ This Means War on Tuesday aka Valentine’s Day. But the studio hasn’t seen the pic’s poor tracking pick up at all in recent days, while Sony Pictures/Screen Gems’ The Vow is soaring in wannasee. So Fox has decided to get out of the way. In an unusual move this late in the game, the studio will sneak This Means War on Tuesday and then hope word of mouth spreads before its new release date of Friday, February 17th. I don’t get what the moviegoing public’s problem with this pic is: Chris Pine, Tom Hardy, and Reese Witherspoon are just as cool casting as Channing Tatum and Rachel McAdams (though apparently not as box office) and the trailers have been engaging (though thrust into a lot of clutter) and the film didn’t look dumb (and that’s is half the battle with this genre)."
I never paid much attention to this bimbo, but I've recently seen a few interviews with her, and she really is a bitch.
But, but it co-stars Chelsea Handler, the hottest female comic around! Why, she has 1 billion facebook followers! Aren't her millions of fans going to rush out and see her latest turd?
Reese's collapse is complete!
I thought February was the month where all the bad films were relegated for release.
If she can't get released in the worst spot, then...
She's getting beat by Channing Tatum and Rachel McAdams!
She's one year older than Hardy and 4 years older than Chris Pine. BFD.
Box Office Poison Reese strikes again!!!!
Get ready for the CBS Sitcom.
"Ugly" Reese Witherspoon is probably better looking than 99% of the people posting here.
"Theater owners voted you box office poison."
I personally want to see it. I want to see The Vow too, but I think its going to be too similar to The Notebook. I also hate the going back and forth in movies it just kills it for me.
As for one beating the other theyre obviously both different genres. Its just up to the people on what they want to see.
I think im going to like This Means War alot better than The Vow.
Who would think Angela Channing would be a better draw than Reese?
"Chris Pine, Tom Hardy, and Reese Witherspoon are just as cool casting as Channing Tatum and Rachel McAdams"
Channing Tatum and Rachel McAdams look like they could be a real-life couple.
You should see the money they are spending in the UK trying to fleece cinemagoers into seeing this one. I read some pathetic paid editorial in a UK mag that touted Reece "America's Comedy Sweetheart".
The couldn't even sum up the film in an enticing way.
It looks like utter shit.
The trailers for it make it play to neither men or women.
Too much action to make it a big female draw (they'll go for the romance of The Vow) and too much romance to make it a male draw. It's trying to play to both men and women and in the end it's appealing to neither.
And really, the believability factor that 2 men are willing to fight to the death for REESE WITHERSPOON is preposterous. That just is the worst casting ever (though since she was a producer on it she pretty much cast herself). This *might* have worked with a more believable female lead.
But for men to go see Reese Witherspoon as an object of desire...and Chelsea Handler (who men HATE) as her best friend, not going to happen. No straight guy will want to go near this. And no girl will waste her time nagging her boyfriend to go with her. Girls will nag their boyfriends to go to The Vow cause it's more romantic.
Yes, that should have been Reese not Reece. I must be thinking of the peanut butter cups which are a far more pleasing prospect than watching Reese on screen.
They're just surrending a few days which makes sense. Why create the perception that the film flopped on Valentine's Day when it can post better numbers. I mean, my gawd, that Katie Heigl movie took $10 M a few weeks ago - surely Reese can do better than that.
It's also a way of improving its tracking by connecting it to The Vow, a film which, frankly, I would've though most people would feel they've seen. I mean aren't the careers of Tatum Channing and Sharon McAdams worthy of their own spoof comedy by now, like Dear John Step
Up Your Letters To Juliet Are In The Notebook Signed The Time Traveller's Wife?
And it just looks like a piece of shit movie too. Maybe that's it? Plus, Chelsea Handler is in it. She really is wearing our her welcome.
"The Vow" reminds me of that old 70's movie "The Promise".
Reese doesn't bother me much, but she is not a beauty, so the premise of this movie is ridiculous. Suspension of disbelief is out the window with this one; the producers are asking us to be downright delusional.
[quote]Reese doesn't bother me much, but she is not a beauty, so the premise of this movie is ridiculous.
Same problem with her last movie, Water for Elephants. She was supposed to be some kind of Depression era circus beauty who both Christoph Waltz and Robert Pattinson were madly in love with. I remember in the trailers there was one shot where Reese is sitting on a horse, all wind swept and (supposedly) glowing in the sun, and Pattinson is "awe struck" by her "beauty." But all I see was that pinched face and pointy chin. It was laughable.
"But for men to go see Reese Witherspoon as an object of desire"
You realize 99% of straight men would have sex with her, right? She was married to gorgeous Ryan Philippe, for chrissakes. Some people are just too jealous to be objective.
[quote]You realize 99% of straight men would have sex with her, right? She was married to gorgeous Ryan Philippe, for chrissakes. Some people are just too jealous to be objective
Yes, if they met a Reese Witherspoon in a bar, they'd fuck her. But she's a movie star, she's being held to a different standard. In sex appeal, she's compared to other hot actresses, and she's definitely lacking. The problem isn't that Reese is ugly, but she's not a sex pot. Straight men won't pay 13 bucks for her stupid rom coms. Women are bored with her.
I thought she and Ryan Phillipe got married because she was pregnant.
"She was married to gorgeous Ryan Philippe, for chrissakes. Some people are just too jealous to be objective"
Umm, he knocked her up so he HAD to marry her. They were super young and she's morally upright so as soon as she found out she was pregnant they got married.
Ryan NEVER would have committed to a cold, ambitious hyper-driven woman woman like her. He dates pretty but unknown 20 year-old LA wannabes these days. That's his speed.
Reese is married to a high profile CAA agent now. Much more her type.
Who would want to go and see that?
This is a star out of control. She and SJP have similar, self-propelled careers, but Witchy has the smarts to not make herself an irresistible babe fought over by two hotties.
Looks like they moved for nothing. The Vow is at 32% rotten (24% rotten for major reviewers).
Be that as it may, The Vow is tracking very strongly and will probably do quite well.
This Means War is getting massacred by critics AND nobody wants to see it.
I can't see who TMW appeals to.
Doesn't matter the reviews for the vow. I'm sure the Notebook got scathing ones too but it's Valentine's Day and a weeper chick flick. It's bulletproof towards bad reviews.
Four Reasons Why Opening This Means War on Valentine’s Day Was a Bad Idea
[quote]Try as Fox might to sell it as a Valentine’s date movie, there's nothing about a McG slow-motion-packed trailer full of two guys shooting guns and blowing things up that screams "snuggly romance." “For the past month, they’ve been telling people that this was going to be the Valentine’s Day movie of the season, in an effort to thwart The Vow,” says one Sony exec. “The problem with that is, it’s not a romance: Conceptually, it’s a balls-out action movie — admittedly starring two of the sexiest young leading men around, but it’s still a ‘guy’ movie. And what you’re left with is, you’re trying to sell a male movie to women. They severely miscalculated what this movie is. I believe the truth is, had they released this at any other time of year as a guy movie, it would do a lot better.” War was written by Simon Kinberg, a prolific writer-producer who is a favorite of Fox's: He did uncredited script doctor work on the studio's like-minded killing-machine-distracted-by-love spy comedy Knight and Day, and was also the screenwriter of Mr. and Mrs. Smith. Both of those were summer releases and marketed as action-comedies.
[quote]"[The male leads Chris Pine and Tom Hardy] are sex symbols,” says one marketing consultant at a rival studio. “They should be the object of desire, not her. And so with the focal point on the two guys, with her in the middle, it suggests she has them on a string. [But] she’s not that type of girl. Reese Witherspoon is the modern Doris Day: She’s the girl you marry after the hot chick has moved on to the next guy.” So while Witherspoon has great credibility in romantic comedies, Angelina Jolie she’s not. More, Witherspoon's last two films — Water for Elephants and How Do You Know (also a romantic comedy; an abysmally reviewed one, sure, but nevertheless cause for alarm) — didn't open, either. Then there’s the matter of Pine’s and Hardy’s own star appeal: It’s an open question if Pine is destined to be a Daniel Craig–type star: beloved and great in his definitional character (Captain James T. Kirk), but less effective in non-franchise roles. (With a $167.8 million worldwide gross, last year's Unstoppable did okay, but that was likely largely thanks to Denzel Washington's appeal.) It’s also unclear if the talented and appealing Tom Hardy, who is only slowly becoming a household name, can actually draw audiences. His unintelligible and unrecognizable appearance in the Dark Knight Rises trailer probably didn't do much to help cement his profile.
Reese is attractive enough. But attractive as in pretty, not as in sexy.
Casting her as the object of simultaneous obsessive lust by younger leading men just doesn't ring true.
[quote]Some films have certain scenes that need to be redone, but on This Means War the whole picture should have been sent back for a reshoot. This perfectly dreadful romantic action comedy manages to embarrass its three eminently attractive leading players in every scene, making this an automatic candidate for whatever raspberries or golden turkeys or other dubious awards may be given in future for the films of 2012. It's an eye-roller from start to finish, although the promise of a sexy competition between two CIA hunks for the attention of a man-starved honey might attract some misguided souls. Originally set to open on Valentine's Day, which falls on a Tuesday this year, the Fox release has been hastily rescheduled simply to sneak on Feb. 14 and legitimately bow three days later.
"she’s not that type of girl. Reese Witherspoon is the modern Doris Day: She’s the girl you marry after the hot chick has moved on to the next guy.” So while Witherspoon has great credibility in romantic comedies, Angelina Jolie she’s not."
Bingo. Reese is too goody-goody to be juggling 2 hot guys.
She's pretty but not sexy in any way, let alone the object of desire for 2 hot assassins.
The problem, OP, is that the public would rather see Chris Pine and Tom Hardy fucking each other than see either of them with Grease Witherspoon.
The ads are creepy because she looks so much older than the two guys. Didn't they realize that when they cast this thing.
She really is starting to look a little overdone.
Enough with the 2 younger guys fighting over Reese movies. I don't understand why she keeps on insisting on these types of roles when it's obvious nobody is buying.
I said this way back but this movie would have been much better if Hardy and Pine just went full frontal and ran off with each other.
Take note, Hollywood.
i used to dog walk in brentwood's mandeville canyon, and I would see Reese hiking and she was ghost pale rail thin and had such a cold persona. I was afraid of her!! nOT pretty at all
True, Reese is pretty and not sexy, and yes, she's "older" than Hardy and Pine (but by only 1 year and 4 years respectively, which shouldn't be considered a big deal). Why do people get so bent out of shape about things like that when it happens plenty of times the other way around in movies, and usually in a much more ludicrous manner? Take last year's typically ridiculous "Zookeeper", which starred 45-year-old fatso Kevin James as an object of lust for competing younger hotties Rosario Dawson and Leslie Bibb, a preposterous premise which I never heard even one peep of protest about. Most Hollywood movies are straight male fantasy, but it should be ok for females to have theirs every once in a while.
A Valentine's movie has to appeal to women. Most guys aren't calling the shots that day. Women want to see straight up romance, not some movie that tries to be so many things, it isn't sure what it is. I don't think the shitty reception is a statement on Reese the actress, but just a bad career choice for her. And those are starting to pile up.
I've seen it and it's quite good. Very funny and the guys are both gorgeous. It's a chick flick for guys. I loved it
That was supposed to say it's a chick flicks the guys won't mind seeing LOL
Ouch, not a great day to be Chelsea Handler if you're reading The Hollywood Reporter:
"...but Handler has been photographed to look practically like Lauren's mom and appears entirely at a loss; the “actress” barely even makes eye contact with Witherspoon and has no sense of creating a character."
Will this be the end of the Witherspoon/Handler friendship?
The Hollywood Reporter is full of shit. Chelsea does just fine and is laugh out loud funny. She and Reese have some great moments together. The 'mom' thing is one of the gags so maybe that reporter only saw the trailer. The movie will do well.
I'm not a Reese fan, OK? She's irrelevant, IMO. I liked Election, and Pleasantville, and Legally Blonde I. After that she bored me.
A Johnny Cash bio-pic should be made one day, but Walk the Line wasn't it. She was awful in an awful movie. It was a TV movie.
The premise of her movies is always the same. Two guys fight over her, or she plays a woman who has to find her inner strength. Shes over. There is nothing interesting, or exciting, or new about her. She's an attractive, middle-aged, very well to do, suburban housewife. That's her image.
But my biggest irritant, is this box office appeal nonsense. Hollywood grinds out these formulaic movies over and over, and they usually flop.
I'm a gay man. I like romantic comedies. Honestly, I'll probably see TMW because I like Hardy & Pine. Action romantic comedies (Mr. & Mrs. Smith) can work with the right cast. Reese is the clinker.
Sure The Vow is crap. But it's based on a true story, and people will see it. Not only is Channing Tatum hot, he comes across on talk shows as a very likeable guy. Rachel McAdams is the same. Likeable. Reese isn't.
Reese comes across as phoney on TV. Plus, other younger actresses are in that genre now, who Reese can't compete with. Yet Reese is in our faces, marketing herself and her image, and for what? No one cares.
Her audience moved on to other actresses. She married a boring business executive. She should produce movies, do charity work and fashion, and forget asking for $15 million for the garbage she grinds out.
I think she has to be the least interesting oscar winner of all time. And thats saying something. Sure as hell didnt deserve to win for walk the line. She cant even pull off a rom com and has no dramatic ability whatsoever.
The Vow is projected to make around $39 million this weekend. Reese can't compete with that.
"Middle-aged"? That seems kinda harsh, and well, inaccurate, since the average life span for American women is around 80. Kinda funny, since her co-stars are around her age, and they're referred to as "young."
As for her supposed "unlikeability," I've never disliked her, and I have never seen any concrete examples or evidence as to why I should dislike her. I think she's ambitious and wants to do well in her chosen field, yes, but I don't see that as a terrible thing - especially when you consider that Reese is a child star who has managed not to implode like most of them do. Perhaps she developed an "ambitious," type A personality in order to help her cope with Hollywood and it has worked. I've never heard any stories about her drinking or drugging, developing eating disorders, trips in and out of rehab, stupid comments on Twitter, pics of her getting out of limos flashing her coochie, falling down in nightclubs drunk, etc. On the contrary, she seems very disciplined, yet it seems that's exactly what some people dislike her for.
Movie Lines had confirmed that "This Means War" has been postponed.
Wel, R52 that's a pretty low bar. I mean good for her for doing what most people do every day, except she has a whole army of people behind her. Managing her.
Look. Reese is canned. She is obvious about being canned. Other actors in her genre are less canned, more spontaneous. She's all image, no substance. I just don't like her, OK? She is soulless to me. If we worked in the same office she and I would definitely not be friends.
R52 she may be sane and well adjusted by hollywood standards. But her clock is ticking. I think her and meg ryan are a lot alike. Meg excelled at rom coms and i think reese found a when harry met sally type script she would do well. But meg had a better flare at drama than reese has. And the bottom still fell out on megs career. Reese can only play the 20 something blonde for so long. She has to start thinking about characters that are closer to her age and approaching 40.
She needs to stop with being the white hot piece of ass that every man in the world can't turn down. That type of shit turns women off. It's a romantic comedy. The target audience likes the Meg Ryan-Sandra Bullock self-depreciating type of everyday women. People they can relate to and sympathize with. Reese has become too cold and "above it all" to be relatable to middle aged fraus.
SJP is another one who needs to get a clue regarding this.
Agree with R54 and R55.
R55, Meg Ryan, whom I despised, was sexy. She wasn't particularly funny or dramatic. She was sexy in an unintimidating way.
It was the maturity of her performance in Walk The Line that was so impressive. I know people here don't acknowledge that but I suppose that's the price you pay for being able to squeeze Ryan Phillipe's ass while he thrusts his cock in your vagina and pumps his seed into you: the basement dwelling queens at DL will hate you.
"Basement dwelling queens": hahahahaha! That's hilarious, r58, and so original.
TBy Jeannette Walls
updated 4/27/2005 2:24:45 AM ET
Reese Witherspoon’s former director has confirmed what unnamed sources have long been buzzing: the “Legally Blonde” star was not a lot of fun to work with.
Robert Luketic, who’s currently directing the movie version of "Dallas," said that he wouldn’t want Witherspoon to be in the flick. When asked if he would cast Witherspoon in “Dallas,” he replied, “Er, no. Moviemaking is supposed to be fun.”
Luketic also directed Jane Fonda and Jennifer Lopez in "Monster in Law," and despite the latter’s reputation for being a diva, he got along with both. Not so for Witherspoon. “I did not bond with her like I bonded with J-Lo and J-Fo,” Luketic said, according to the London Express. “There is something impenetrable about that woman.”
He claimed that Witherspoon was humorless on the set of the comedy. “She would come out of her trailer and ask: ‘Why are you all laughing?’” he says. “She would want to know why we all had smiles on our faces. Moviemaking to her is a deadly serious business.”
"Oh my God. I'm back. I'm home. All the time, it was... We finally really did it ... You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!"
We are switching to the new platform for The DataLounge this weekend. All of our mobile users have been using it for over a week and all first time users have been using it for about a month - which adds up to well over one million users. So we're ready to end this phase of the testing and move everybody to the new site. (more)
And yes, we've changed the look and some of how it operates.
Yes, we know you just *hate* it in well in advance.
Yes, we know we suck.
Yes, we are the biggest suckers that ever sucked.
But it was time for a change and with the huge shift to mobile it was long overdue. We've taken this opportunity not only to update the look but also make major changes under the hood (or "bonnet" if you're either British or pretentious or both). And we have to prepare for 2016 - a presidential election year where we can normally expect to see a 60% jump in traffic (yes, we've seen 5 presidential elections so far…Christ we're old).
The site has a bunch - nay, plethora - of new features which will make the site more usable: better search, the ability to ignore posters and threads, see link previews, to pick up a thread where you left off, spam and malware filtering and more.
If you want you can go explore and see for yourself, Click here.
And while running the tests we've noticed two interesting reactions to the new system - people are spending more time on the site and more people that come stay around longer and look at more stuff. Both good things. Yay!
Possibly we've not slain all the dragons and there will be issues that come up during the switchover. There's a help button in the lower right hand corner of the page which you can use to send us bug reports.
Please include as much information about the hardware (PC, Mac, Tablet, Phone etc), operating system (Windows, Mac OS, Android, iOS etc) and browser (Chrome, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer etc) that you are using as possible to help us replicate and fix the problem.
Please note that complaints about colors, fonts, icons and the like are not "bugs" - they are design choices that we've made and we expect one or two cases of world-class bitching. But they won't actually cause headaches, scurvy, heart attacks, Restless Leg Syndrome, Morgellon's Disease or the vapors (but have your smelling salts at hand just in case).
Talking to DataLounge servers. Please wait a moment...