This is (your only) War(ning)

Just watched This Means War; a ghastly, dull and embarrassing film that has actually driven me to get my reviewing hat on. OK. I'm not going to avoid spoilers. Sorry. Basic plot: a somewhat vapid and very insecure woman (played by Reece Witherspoon) carelessly decides to date two men simultaneously - and those two men just happen to be (unbeknownst to her) bromancing it up already as CIA agents, FDR (played by Chris Pine) and Tuck (played by Tom Hardy). Of course we can expect a lot of high-tec stalkery high-jinks!
Instead of behaving like normal, well-adjusted human beings, it's decided (by the woman and her 'best friend', a character I would pay good money to have banned forever from film) that dating two men at once is a great idea. And the men, instead of taking a step back and realising that they're risking a lifelong friendship for the affections of a total stranger, decide that competing for her love is the most logical way of spending their time. And thousands of taxpayer dollars, because if you're going to have spies compete for a woman's love, well, you've got to have them do it with TECH. Because breaking into a woman's house and cramming it full of cameras and microphones is of course not a violation of relationship boundaries, personal privacy... or the law.
Reece Witherspoon's character is just as selfish and unsympathetic in this film as her character in the (also ghastly) film How Do You Know managed to be; only perhaps slightly more selfish. Besides that, she doesn't seem to have any actual consistent personality, besides a propensity towards being vague and easily swayed by the machinations and advice of other people.
FDR (I don't know what the hell's going on with his name either) is one of your two-a-penny Hollywood womaniser types: everything he does in the film smacks of selfish motives and a deceptive, completely dangerous and undesirable willl to trample all over any sort of ethical boundaries. The film, at one point, tries to hand-wave his actions with a 'he has dead-parent issues' moment, which, of course, should make every psychotic deed of crazy seem suddenly the act of a desperately sad and vulnerable little puppy, I guess.
Tuck, on the other hand, is portrayed as a sensitive, comparatively conscientious British divorcee with a young son (who, unfortunately, is less of a character and more of a background feature. Though I'm not sure that this sort of thing isn't preferable to Hollywood's treatment of child characters.) He cannot join the ranks of sane, desirable rom-com heroes, of course, because he is a full participant in the 'spying on a girl and trying to sabotage his friend's relationship with her' highjinks, though he does it with far less deception and creates and sticks to a code of gentlemanliness regarding the whole situation.
Guess which one she chooses?
Oh, and I have hardly touched upon the character played by a woman called Chelsea Handler. This bizarre and recently trendy trope really pushes all the wrong buttons for me: the boozed-up, unstable, morally bankrupt best friend who gives terrible advice trope, I mean. Every on-screen moment made me angrier and angrier, from the moment said character set up an online dating profile for her friend including revealing photos without permission from that friend and possibly reaching its zenith in the moment when she started yelling 'Sex tie breaker!' into a mobile phone repeatedly, whilst surrounded by small children. Ugh.
There is some kind of action plot shoe-horned in to appease male viewers, but it is ridiculous and somewhat useless, as well as being so unmemorable I can't even really comment on it much.
Visually the film errs on the tacky side, with some dodgy editing and very ugly colour enhancement. If it's bad enough for me to notice, it must be pretty bad.

All in all this movie is a sad, tired waste of resources. How many times, Hollywood? NOBODY LIKES LOVE TRIANGLES. LOVE TRIANGLES ARE STUPID.