for specifics about the grey sweatshirt worn by Reese: click here
Like the preposterous trapeze scene (why is the trapeze set up? Did they really just sneak in there? Are they allowed to sneak in there? Wouldn't she be more concerned that they just snuck in there? Wouldn't she be concerned about utilizing the circus equipment? She swings, rotates to hanging upside down, and Hardy grabs her arms and draws her from her fly bar without a hitch; a perfect execution...).
Or Reese Witherspoon 180ing a Jeep during a high speed chase.
Or several continuity goofs (involving Witherspoon's teeth, Hardy's blood makeup, and the fight scene between Pine and Hardy).
Or the script's view of men and women and friendship.
Or the bad guy tracking down the good guys by a scrap of cloth taken to a tailor in Europe who happens to be the exact tailor that made the suit Chris Pine was wearing and knows to whom the suit belonged simply by touching the fabric (since it was "one of a kind").
But what I want to discuss is Witherspoon's wardrobe. (In a good way).
Secret Agent Awesome #1, FDR*: Chris Pine
Secret Agent Awesome #2, Tuck: Tom Hardy
Reese Witherspoon: Reese Witherspoon
A total plot device: Chelsea Handler
The bad guy who appears for 2 minutes: Til Schweiger
Tuck's ex-wife: Abigail Spencer
Tuck's son: John Paul Ruttan
Aunt May: Rosemary Harris
Plays the same character from Green Lantern: Angela Bassett
*did McG really turn Chris Pine's character into a "McG avatar"?
I thought Reese's wardrobe was more exciting than the plot of the film. And I've never really found Witherspoon all that attractive. I mean, I think she's attractive, but I've never been like "I think Reese Witherspoon is hot." Cute. Yes. Attractive. Yes. Sexy? Not so much.
But in This Means War I thought she was hot, hot, hot, hot, hot (sexy, sexy, sexy). And it was because of the clothes (and the one time when she wasn't wearing clothes helped too).
SOPHIE DE RAKOFF
A list of Sophie's movies (from her webpage):
Three websites had interviews with De Rakoff that I think are worth reading if you are interested in fashion or knowing more about the fashion of This Means War. (Check the preview of the "People Style Watch" article for a few words on Pine's and Hardy's wardrobes).
Because I am not a fashion analyst, I turned to a fashion analyst to give us some more insight into De Rakoff's methods with Reese's wardrobe.
Tanner Opalinski runs the site retromodernchic. Here's what she had to say.
"I like the one line [see image directly above, second response] about what you'll wear to a club date is different than a zoo date. It's a very simple thought. But the thing is...when a woman truly loves fashion she also loves the challenge of finding an appropriate outfit for the occasion. Or, better yet, putting together an outfit that can transfer from one setting to another (for example, going to a baseball game which is then followed by drinks at a swanky bar) by changing shoes or adding a belt or different accessories or changing your hair.
"And it really does make a difference to be conscious of what you're doing on a date. 'Cause you can be hot as hell and fashion-forward in heels and a mini dress, but if you're supposed to go rock climbing you just look stupid. Context can make all the difference on a hit or miss outfit, which is something people forget sometimes.
"De Makoff made Witherspoon look so good because she analyzed the activity, time of day, and opportunity to take control, and dressed Reese accordingly for success."
Also, for some insight into specific brands, check out this article from SHEKNOWS.
More about Hardy's and Pine's wardrobes from GQ.
Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Yes and no.
I liked Chris Pine, Tom Hardy, and Reese Witherspoon. I like Chelsea Handler in real life, but disliked her character in this. In a movie that's hyper-reality, that's Hollywood-reality (Holly-reality) (Holly-ality (which sounds like a type of Mortal Kombat finishing movie (which I'm totally okay with))), Handler's character was, I thought, one of the least believable things.
I liked that there were a couple of long takes. I enjoyed the shape of the plot, that we go from Reese + Tom to Reese + Chris, and just alternate back and forth. I thought it was fun to see how everything escalated.
There were a lot of things that bothered me though. The trapeze scene I mentioned in the introduction. The fact that the movie is, for the most part, realism, until you have Reese Witherspoon reverse 180-ing a Jeep.
What also bothered me: that This Means War has the cheesy climactic moment where the disparate plot points (The Bad Guy chasing Hardy and Pine; Pine and Hardy dating Witherspoon) dovetail. In this case, it's Witherspoon's consumer product knowledge helping the two secret agents in there most desperate moment (when a bullet proof car is barreling down on them). What happens immediately after that? The bullet proof car flips and is COMING RIGHT AT WITHERSPOON. Pine and Hardy are on EITHER SIDE OF HER. If she stays put SHE'LL BE CRUSHED. Which means she has to CHOOSE A DIRECTION. BUT BY CHOOSING A DIRECTION SHE'S ALSO CHOOSING THE GUY SHE WANTS TO BE WITH. LOOK HOW WELL IT ALL COMES TOGETHER. (Instead of the characters moving the plot, the plot is moving the characters. This means Witherspoon doesn't actually have to give a break-up speech. Which probably keeps the movie more lighthearted than it would have been had she and Hardy actually had to have a dialogue.)
I also found it weird that there's extended dialogue about Hitchcock. Usually, in art, when you reference another painter/writer/poet/photographer/artist/director/etc. it's because your work is in some way connected. So, in Breathless (1960), when Godard has Michel (Belmondo) stare at a Bogart picture, viewers are supposed to seek connections between the character of Michel and the various characters of Bogart. And then connect Bogart with film-noir--thus connecting Breathless with film-noir. Was McG (or writers Simon Kinberg and Timothy Dowling) really comparing his film to a Hitchcock movie? Or was/were he/they simply taking a minute or two to appreciate Hitchcock? Except where Pine's character praises The Lady Vanishes, Witherspoon disparages The Lady Vanishes (says it's of lesser quality). What's the connection between the films? The plot of Vanishes involves a spy...beyond that...I don't know. I've been trying to find meaning in this exchange. I can't. It may be that it was totally superfluous. A way to demonstrate that Pine is less cultured than he thinks he is and Witherspoon too cultured for him (which would justify the Klimt's paintings scene). In terms of comparing McG to Hitchcock....come on. That's like comparing a Chicken McNugget to a dish you see on "Top Chef All-Stars" and drool over. Yeah, McNuggets are a guilty pleasure, but...how many other things would you rather eat because they taste better, are healthier, and are more filling? How many other meals are more satisfying? If I had to take a wild guess, I'd say a shit ton.
What it's good for:
-a fun date movie (it is fun; either because you enjoy the characters or because you can make fun of it)
-a way to spend time with Witherspoon, Pine, and Hardy when they're allowed to just have fun.
-plot is ridiculous
-brief wrapping-up of main plot
%Character / %Actor's personality or previous roles
I also like:
Witherspoon: Cruel Intentions; Legally Blonde
Pine: Star Trek; Smokin' Aces; Unstoppable
Hardy: RocknRolla; Inception; Warrior; Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Schweiger: Inglourious Basterds