The Five-Year Engagement (2012) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
149 Reviews
Sort by:
A passable romantic comedy
FilmPulse5 May 2012
There are risks when romantic comedy is injected with "truth." Too little, and it feels like a desperate attempt to give the film credibility. Too much and it starts to feel uncomfortable as the comedy is buried in what appear to be a string of life lessons. The Five-Year Engagement tries to find a balance between comedy and truth and after a bit over two hours, almost succeeds.

That's not to say the film is bad. It's far from it, especially compared to what usually passes for a romantic comedy these days. Its leads (Emily Blunt and Jason Segel) have a surprising, easy chemistry and director Nicholas Stoller (who co-wrote with Segel) uses the talented supporting cast to add new perspective and layers to what is a pretty straightforward story.

Violet (Blunt) is a post-doctorate student. Tom (Segel) is a rising star of a chef in San Francisco. They get engaged on their first anniversary and while most romantic comedies would end here, The Five-Year Engagement does something that romantic comedies fail to do - showing what happens after the "happy ending." In doing so, we get to see every crack, seam and bump in their relationship, from Tom's resentment at leaving his dream job behind to follow Violet after she receives a fellowship at the University of Michigan, to Violet's increasing frustration at how Tom changes during his relocation.

It's a credit to Segel and Stoller that the situations that arise do so organically and don't feel forced in for shock value, and when things start to deteroriate, we not only see it coming, we solemnly nod because it is inevitable.

The film has issues, though, and they almost capsize the film. The most glaring one is the running time. The film clocks in at a bit over two hours, and you feel every grueling minute of it. The pacing and editing are a near disaster and at times, watching feels more like a chore than a good time. This is partially because the film, while billed as a romantic comedy, is only funny in spurts. The serious 'truths' of being in a relationship take center stage, which is in itself not a bad thing, but in a comedy, it really drags the film down.

The ending is typical rom-com schmaltz, though, as if the filmmakers snapped out of their malaise, thought "hey, aren't we making a comedy?" and wisely ended the film on an acceptably quirky note.

In the end, The Five-Year Engagement is serviceable entertainment, but could have been a lot more had they been able to strike the delicate balance they were trying for.

53 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Utterly disappointing
geniebean412 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Everyone involved in this movie is so much better than this. I'm kind of embarrassed for all of them. Did we need a whole movie about how awful it is to be engaged to a gorgeous, funny, intelligent woman that you make sacrifices for? I just don't understand the point of it. The leads were cute enough together, but it didn't feel like a real relationship. The peaks and troughs were all so contrived and predictable. And all the "comedy" hinged on genitals, dead grandparents, Andy from Parks & Rec except inexplicably successful, and an Asian man with a thick accent. Really? It's 2012, guys. That stuff is stale.

Allison Brie was fantastic, though.
54 out of 79 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Georgina Eldridge6 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I switched this film off after thirty minutes, because in all that time I did not laugh or even smile and had started to feel a bit ill at the dangerously pathetic attempts at humour.

I like Jason Segel but Emily Blunt does nothing for me - she is just quite dull and irritating. However, even Jason Segel could not save this embarrassing train-wreck of a film.

Just don't bother. If you do you will very quickly regret it when you see an engagement party with some sad powerpoint presentation of Segel's exes, with an accompanying song. Yes, because that is both believable AND hilarious!I was on an eight-hour flight and I preferred to switch this off and stare out of the window. That should tell you everything.
26 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Enjoyable, Funny, some Dark humor, some parts dragged
chris-337-7861076 April 2012
Enjoyable funny movie that portrayed the modern day conflict of a couple with two careers. Who gives up what and why and how willing are they to accept the true full meaning of the compromise. Several good points are made and good analogies used.

Humor works for both guys and gals.

Without spoiling anything, the element used to mark time is somewhat dark.

Be familiar with the song 'Cu cu ru cu cu Palamo'. It is sung very well in Spanish early in the course of the movie with no translation but is tone setting for the movie. Used again in the credits.

At just over 2 hours, this movie seemed to drag at some points and several scenes could have been edited down a wee bit. Don't need to see something for 30 seconds or 2 minutes when the point is made and understood in considerably less time.

I don't see any academy nods for this one nor would I have expected any for this genre of movie but it was an enjoyable movie for an evening.

My wife and son were there and enjoyed it as well.
49 out of 81 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Absolutely Terrible!
krsgallant13 May 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This is one of the all time worst films I have ever seen. I am surprised that theater goers aren't demanding their money back (it really was that bad). Shame on you Nicholas Stoller for your lack of direction -- the film was all over the place. I am amazed that Judd Apatow did not take his name of this one -- it's a real stinker! Great cast, beautiful locations -- no excuse. With all of the great scripts that can't get funding, what genius gave this poor attempt at comedy the green light??!!! No wonder the theater was empty! In addition to the bad directing, editing and writing, the film was almost two and a half hours! It was painful to sit through.
27 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Delightful Romantic Comedy
Claudio Carvalho15 October 2016
In Los Angeles, the chef Tom Solomon (Jason Segel) meets the psychologist Violet Barnes (Emily Blunt) in a New Year's Eve party and they immediately fall in love with each other. One year later, Tom proposes Violet to get married and they schedule their wedding date. However, the application of Violet to the University of Michigan to a master's degree is accepted and Tom declines to the offer of his boss Chef Sally (Lauren Weedman) to be the chef of a famous restaurant that belongs to her. His best friend and assistant Alex Eilhauer (Chris Pratt), who is married with Violet's sister Suzie Barnes-Eilhauer (Alison Brie), accepts the position. They postpone the wedding and Tom and Violet move to Berkley for two years. While Violet befriends her Professor Winton Childs (Rhys Ifans) and colleagues, Tom has difficulties to find a job and work is a restaurants specialized in sandwiches. Two years later, when Tom is ready to return to Los Angeles, Violet is invited to be assistant professor in Michigan. What will happen to the couple?

"The Five-Year Engagement" is a delightful romantic comedy with the lovely Emily Blunt in the lead role. The plot combines romance, drama, comedy and black humor in right doses and the only boring moment is when Chris Pratt sings – probably he is a better chef than singer. Jason Segel shows great chemistry with Emily Blunt and is easy to understand the relationship problems due to professional realization. The beauty of Dakota Johnson is amazing but her shallow relationship of her character with Tom is not well explored. One of the best moments is when Tom has lunch with his parents. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Cinco Anos de Noivado" ("Five-Year Engagement")
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
It's the underlying allusions to psychological analysis that stand out when the wit is weak.
GoneWithTheTwins26 April 2012
No groundbreaking ideas or themes are presented in The Five-Year Engagement, but that doesn't mean it's not entertaining. Spurts of slapstick, a dash of vulgar humor, generous helpings of uncomfortable awkwardness, and a pinch of melodrama seasons the film with a cross of genres and unexpected laughs. Although moments of sudden darkness cloud the generally light-hearted mood, the greatest achievement for writer/star Jason Segel and writer/director Nicholas Stoller is that the characters are never despicable and retain a likability that typically shirks away from roles designed to have dramatic, dynamic ups and downs.

Tom Solomon (Jason Segel) and Violet Barnes (Emily Blunt) are madly in love. Despite a repeatedly botched proposal, they are destined to be wed. But what starts as a short engagement with immediate marriage planning eventually gets stretched into a couple of years. The lovers decide to move away from Tom's successful sous-chef job in San Francisco so that Violet can pursue a psychology career at the University of Michigan. Head professor Winton Childs (Rhys Ifans) manages to extend Violet's position there, spreading the engagement into a five-year stretch that weighs heavily on Tom's contentment and Violet's ability to handle his perceived lack of success in the new environment.

With most of Segel's comedies, embarrassing situations and an inescapable level of coarseness replace genuine creative humor. This film is no exception, frequently using sexual jokes, carnal activities, venereal insinuations, and Segel's own seemingly contractually obligated nudity to fuel the hilarity. The dialogue supports this brand of badinage, although fortunately it's the underlying allusions to psychological analysis that stand out when the wit is weak. Commentary on the different ways men and women cope with problems is particularly intuitive. Also, one of Violet's focuses in the psychology department is to conduct an experiment in which subjects fill out forms about their personal stresses. They are then observed either eating stale donuts, or waiting for fresh ones to arrive, after being falsely informed that such new refreshments would be provided. She determines that people with troubled pasts are more likely to snag an old donut than those without turmoil in their lives. Throughout the film, occasionally quite blatantly, the notion that Tom and Violet's relationship correlates to the donut experiment arises. Indeed, many of the relationships depicted in the movie are representative of wanting something new or being content with something that is imperfect yet satisfying in the moment.

The conclusion wraps up all the dilemmas too neatly, utilizing contrived methods of repairing debacles and adding nonsensical solutions of pure fantasy. It's still affable in production despite the strict adherence to the romantic comedy formula, never betraying the sense of general decency about the characters (even the love triangle is broken up without the antagonist resorting to anything unusually cruel). The supporting roles of Chris Pratt as moronic buddy Alex, Alison Brie as crybaby sister Suzie, Chris Parnell as a stay-at-home dad/devoted hunter, and Brian Posehn as a candidly foul-mouthed deli employee are largely more memorable than the leads (although Blunt is always watchable). A scene in which Blunt and Brie converse while imitating Cookie Monster and Elmo, respectively, is impressively silly and probably the most unforgettable skit. Suzie essentially sums up the familiar joviality of The Five-Year Engagement when pep-talking Violet into showing some enthusiasm: "This is your wedding! You only get a few of these." - The Massie Twins (
31 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Depressing, oppressive, completely unfunny experience
gregeichelberger25 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I tried to make a list of movies which I laughed at less than Universal's newest release, "The Five-Year Engagement," and could only think of two: "Observe and Report" and "The Passion Of the Christ."

Films I found much funnier include, "The Love Guru," "Duece Bigalow: American Gigalo," "All About Steve" and "Platoon." That does not surprise, however, since this picture was directed by Nicholas Stoller (who has helmed two of the worst "comedies" of all-time, "Get Him To the Greek" and "Forgetting Sarah Marshall").

With a cast that features Jason Segel ("The Muppets," "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," "How I Met Your Mother" TV series, who also co-wrote with Stoller), Emily Blunt ("Salmon Fishing In the Yemen," "The Devil Wears Prada"), Chris Pratt ("Moneyball," "Parks and Recreation" TV series), Alison Brie ("Scream 4," "Mad Men" TV series) and David Paymer ("Quiz Show," an Academy Award nominee for "Mr. Saturday Night"), there is - sadly - not one funny moment or humorous situation.

And, at two-plus hours, this monstrosity drags like a bloated beached grey whale, with no pacing, direction or intriguing plot line to hold any interest whatsoever.

The story has sous chef, Tom Solomon (Segel), meeting Violet Barnes (Blunt) at a "super hero" costume party in San Francisco. He's a pink bunny and she's Princess Diana (for SOME reason). A year later, he proposes, but a series of contrived events take place to postpone the nuptials.

She then gets a job in the psychology department at the University of Michigan, so he gives up his job to travel to Ann Arbor with her. While there, she meets another group of depressing, humor-impaired colleagues, including Kevin Hart ("Fool's Gold" - notice the pattern here of these actors appearing in terrible comedies?), Mindy Kaling ("The Office" TV series) and Randall Park ("Larry Crowne").

Meanwhile, he struggles to find work, finally getting a job making sandwiches at a greasy spoon diner. As she rises in the eyes of her professor, the irritating Brit Winton Childs (Rhys Ifans, "Nanny McPhee Returns" *sigh*), Tom turns into Grizzly Adams, growing a ridiculous beard, making his own mead and killing his own food.

The film then lurches from "cerebreal" comedy to a romantic drama as the two fall out, have short flings with other people (Tom is smeared with potato salad and nearly raped by a co-worker) and separate.

Then just as quickly, the movies introduces some wild slapstick in which Violet gets shot with an arrow and slammed with a car door; while Tom wanders out on a freezing night, suffers frostbite and loses a toe (this is supposed to be laugh-inducing?!). Other "hilarious" moments in this enterprise are supposed to be the funerals of various grandparents who died waiting for this marriage to take place. Pardon my belly laughs.

While Violet moves in with Winton, Tom begins dating a younger woman who seems to be insatiable in bed. In fact, the soft-core porn scenes here are so monotonous (showing intercourse from ever possible angle while she screams, "Faster Tom, faster!") that the sex becomes unbelievably annoying and makes one wish for the passion and lucidity of a 1970s porno flick.

What will happen to the star-crossed lovers? If you're like me, you will not care one bit, since all they seem to do is bicker and have absolutely no chemistry, anyway. There also is not one likable or even redeeming character here.

Even Tom's best friend, Alex (Pratt), and Violet's sister, Suzi (Brie), who hook up after she is impregnated on a one-night stand, are so shallow and badly-written as to induce a malaise of immense proportion.

And Segel, who helped bring the Muppets back to the big screen (an effort I have praised), is the worst culprit of all, as his Tom is basically one of the biggest jerks in recent comedy history, yet despite his aggressive repulsiveness, Violet cries (several times during the proceedings), "I love you, so much, I love you so much."

Love is an emotion few will feel about "The Five-Year Engagement," which is about the length of time one will believe they have actually spent watching this claptrap.
18 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
great, fun, down to earth movie.
smithj012619 June 2012
a lot of these reviews are saying this movie is bad or disappointing, but honestly its the first movie in a long time that i could relate to. another aspect i love is the dialogue, it doesn't take itself too seriously and has real life comedy, instead of trying to be a huge blockbuster. many think thats a bad thing, but why would you want to see another Hollywood dramatized cheesy romantic comedy?! its clearly underrated, jason segal and chris pratt fans should love this movie thoroughly. the only thing that i wasn't a huge fan of was the British accents, seems forced at first but the movie is so long that by the end it all comes together and warms your soul. if you've ever had to move away because of some girl, you should see this, very relatable comedy, that's all.
28 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
And It Could Have Been So Good
patsworld3 May 2012
Alas, this is another example of a movie with some possibility – it has a plot, decent casting and acting, some humor – but it still manages to leave the viewer, for the most part, having fallen into the pit of displeasure. Once again the writers have chosen to forgo sparkling dialog, or even intelligent dialog, in favor of the gratuitous foul language and blatant sex. Such a waste. Makes me wonder if today's screenwriters opt to cop out on creativity on purpose. Or - have they no imagination? Do they assume the theater audience has none? Trust me, a few things left to the imagination can be far sexier,and probably funnier and entertaining than the in-your-face stuff. And tossing the F word around like confetti at Mardi Gras is boring. Maybe this actually does indicate a severe lack of talent on the parts of the writers/producers. Or could it be that movies like this, that have their moments, but not enough of them, are produced for the soul purpose of making the good movies look even better. Just a thought.
53 out of 99 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Horrible in every way
felliott-133-634115 May 2012
The first minutes of this movie seemed promising, but it quickly sank into a horrible, slow paced film where nothing seemed important. The length of this movie is just silly, I love slow movies and sat through this movie longer than I would have anyway because I liked that it was a different pacing than most Hollywood flicks. But by half way through I realised that this pacing does not work for this film, because there is not enough happening to keep us interested through the slow points. The characters are not highly complex, the drama isn't compelling, and neither is their relationship or any of the relationships around them.

I feel as though half of this film should have been left on the cutting room floor, a very poor job in editing as well as script editing. This seems to me as a first draft. I loved forgetting Sarah Marshall, and feel as though the producers probably rushed the script of 'The Five Year Engagement' into production before it was developed. So what we are left with is a very slow, very boring, and sometimes plain laughable movie.

I never walk out on movies, and I walked out on this one because I felt the horror couldn't go on any longer - and surely it would come to an end soon, only to realise there was another hour to go. A really poor movie.
53 out of 101 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Bar Far The Worst Movie of 2012
foodfrenzy26 January 2013
I am always leery of actors who want to take more control of their careers by either writing, directing or producing movies. It is painfully obvious Jason Segel is more suited to be given lines and directed than to try to write his own scripts. This fell into the same category as American Pie and had the same mean spiritedness as The Breakup." It was just a train wreck from jump street.

What I also found offensive was the buffoonery of the supporting cast. He is supposed to be some up and coming chef working in a high end restaurant in San Francisco where is co-worker, mind you simulates masturbation with a carrot replete with a facial money shot in an exhibition kitchen. How do you spell FAIL? His chef is depicted as some crazy lesbian who is nothing but unhinged and the whole thing was frustrating to watch since I've been in the industry for over 25 years.

They depict these two as great communicators deeply in love but for the life of them cannot work out their futures together and as stereotypes in Hollywood go, Segel then proceeds to fall completely apart now becoming a rabid hunter coupled with really bad ironic facial hair. We almost turned this horrid thing off it weren't for the voyeur in us try to see the movie could get any worse. It did. The two scenes Segel actually uses the knife is to basically butcher the living hell out of onions. Ugh.

Laughs were to a minimum and crass and unrealistic gags were never ending. I didn't buy the genuine connection between the two that the writers were trying to create and frankly,I want my $5.99 back from Comcast. What a complete waste of money.
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Extremely funny, but dark and serious at times
hhz764 April 2012
This movie was surprisingly funny and definitely had a lot of the same humor as Bridesmaids did. If you enjoyed Bridesmaids, you will definitely enjoy this movie.

Basically, the movie was funny, yet serious, and very enjoyable to watch. Some of the humor is really unique and I wouldn't say there was anything in there that would make you roll your eyes or think "that's so cliché!" Some of the parts were truly laugh out loud and had the audience in tears.

Humor aside, the movie did seem to have a good message. It showed the problems sometimes couples face with relationships, and there are also some simple twists in there that keep the plot rolling. All in all, the movie is fun, will make you laugh, and is probably worth seeing.
39 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A waste of time and money
jrrdube6 May 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is strickly a 'by the numbers' date movie, the only problem is a lack of comedy. Considering the cast, it should have had some moments, but the lack of any real funny gags, or joke is surprising. The only thing I can think of is they cut out a lot to avoid a NC-17 rating, so it might be interesting to eventually see an unrated version, but I doubt the result would change things that much. I would consider this movie more of a drama than a comedy, because it deals with the reality of moving from one city to another, and the fact that you may think you have a career, it all really depends on the time and place. If they marketed the movie as a drama, I would have not expected to be amused, but the whole campaign is centred around the laughs surrounding an engagement, but there is nothing funny about frostbite, and amputation of body parts. It is starting to look like Jason Segal isn't as funny as everyone thought, and as he gets older, he will be less and less funny, who really wants to watch someone in their 40s act like a teenager, because he is funny now, sometimes, doing that kind of comedy, but this movie demonstrates that is the only comedy he is successful at. The supporting cast was the only interesting part of the plot, and where the movie worked, and the only reason this movie gets a very generous one star out of ten.

If you have $20 you want to waste, find a casino, or some scratch and win tickets, you WILL have a better time with either one, as opposed to this flop.
19 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A funny 90-minute movie that was 2 hours long
NRGDude8 May 2012
While the movie started strong and quickly reached the first set of wedding delays, once the characters moved to Michigan, things bogged down quickly. Without spoiling the movie, the antics in the Wolverine State were more like bad SNL skits than part of this movie.

The characters, both primary and secondary, were very likable and were also very well developed. Some of the fringe characters (I talking to you, Dakota!) tended to be overly done and one-note. They could have been scaled back to fit their place in the movie thus adding to rather than subtracting from the story. (Math in a movie review? Who would have guessed?) Tom's job hunt problems seemed to be oriented toward setting up jokes than based in reality. A man with his background would have landed a position in Ann Arbor in a New York minute. However, Violet's drama was much better written and more believable.

Once back in San Francisco, everything picked up again and you began rooting for the home team to finally make it to the goal line.

So go enjoy the beginning and end but be ready to take a 30-minute nap in the middle. Maybe the Director's Cut with actually cut out the boring parts. One can hope.
16 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not really a comedy
rogerdob9 May 2012
This picture is being sold as a comedy...however it is more like a drama with some comedic elements...and those few comedic moments aren't really that funny. The movie examines with a cynical eye a relationship that the director wants to present as a real loving one. However, anyone in the audience can see that this relationship has problems. The female lead is an annoying selfish character while the male character is wimpy and feels sorry for himself.

The movie is extremely self was written by the director and by the star. I don't think they wanted to leave any scenes out. The movie meanders for over two hours. It could have easily been a 90 minute film.
21 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Five-Years... Could Have Been Shorter Though
josh_youngbwfc2 July 2012
The Five-Year Engagement sees Jason Segel continuing to try and cement his place as one of Hollywood's greatest comedy actors following The Muppets and Jeff Who Lives At Home with the help of writing partner Nicholas Stoller. Segel's latest offering comes in the form of a romantic comedy when exactly a year after meeting Tom (Segel) proposes to his girlfriend Violet (Emily Blunt) but unexpected events keep on getting in their way as they attempt to tie the knot with one another.

With most films of this genre you get the same thing over and over again: boy meets girl, boy and girl fall in love, boy and girl split up, boy and girl get back together and live happily ever after. In The Five-Year Engagement what you get is an in depth look at the ins and outs of a stable relationship as it journeys through the ups and downs of life. I think that this is a great idea and shows that relationships don't always run smoothly as plenty of other films would have you believe. I also believe that The Five-Year Engagement separates itself from other comedies aimed at an adult audience by being cleverer and, although we do get to see Jason Segel's rear end on more than one occasion, a lot of the comedy is very well written and obviously well put together.

There is clear chemistry between the two leads of the film, Jason Segel and Emily Blunt which is obviously helped by their off screen friendship and the fact that the two of them have worked together previously. Segel puts in a great performance but I don't think that we ever get to see the best of him like we have seen in The Muppets and television sitcom How I Met Your Mother. He is a very fine comedic actor though and brings out some good laughs here; I'm not a fan of Emily Blunt too much and at times her comedy efforts seemed a little forced. Also, her accent seems overly British even though it's authentic, how weird is that? The Five-Year Engagement starts off very well with some hilarious moments and really sets you up for what should be a laugh a minute film from start to finish. A lot of this is the emphasis put on the characters of Tom's colleague and friend Alex (Chris Pratt) and Violet's sister Suzie (Alison Brie). Whilst their relationship offers very little to the film as a whole their individual contribution to scenes are very well delivered. Chris Pratt is wonderfully funny in almost every scene in which he features and a particular scene featuring Pratt's Alex delivering a presentation of Tom's former girlfriends is my favourite part of the film and a brilliantly written and acted scene. Unfortunately, their characters seem to fizzle out and so does the film itself.

There is a reason that most romantic comedies are only an hour and a half long; the plot cannot sustain a two hour movie without lagging. The Five-Year Engagement does try and stretch over two hours and you would think that with five years of a relationship to tell then it would easily manage this without getting too boring. You would be wrong. It gets to a point where you think it could be coming to an end only to realise there is still about half an hour left and after a while the laughs become a sparse item. Don't get me wrong, The Five-Year Engagement at times is hilarious and it is definitely a great romantic comedy with real stock in the lead characters but it tails off towards the end. It is still, though, definitely worth watching!
20 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
You'll Think You Spent Five Years Watching This Drivel
Wendell Ricketts5 September 2013
Rom-com C list drivel: predictable plot that takes its sweet time getting to the painfully inevitable conclusion. A few funny moments, but problems of both pacing and tone are fatal, as are the silly Brit stereotypes, the silly Jewish stereotypes, the silly "clueless straight guy" stereotypes. Jason Segal is, at times, so unbearably unattractive – both physically and as a character – that the whole "love of her life" angle turns into more disbelief than any normal person can suspend without hydraulic help. In the end, what the film has to say about relationships is a lot of galling treacle. That doesn't set it apart from its appalling genre; rather, it simply reinforces how utterly pointless that genre is.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Seriously, don't bother.
I only went to see this film because it was on at a convenient time, but boy do I wish I never bothered. It was...dreadful. It calls itself a comedy? In a reasonable sized screening I didn't hear one person actually laugh, the odd titter - that was it. What resounded was the awkwardness everyone felt watching this 'comedy' just fail in every way. We were all sat there in horror as joke after joke fell flat on its face. Mind you, so unbelievably bad as it was, it was spell-binding in its awkwardness. I think Emily Blunt generally is a great actress, but she does not have comic timing. You'd think Jason Segel couldn't go wrong, but even he couldn't pull off the "jokes" that this film was rammed with. I would literally rather pull my own fingernails off than have to watch this painfully misguided comedy again. Who on earth wrote that script? Give it up before you butcher any more actors' reputations.
16 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
First time I walked out of a movie in 20 years!
Drewboy-228 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
If I could rate this a zero, I would. Meanwhile I'll say this: if you are a young parent with kids who can't get a sitter, don't even THINK of bringing young children into this film! This is considered a romantic COMEDY? Ridiculous! It's a raunchy comedy, but any respect for the sanctity of marriage is completely thrown by the wayside here. Scenes showing male depression, a professor hitting on a student, people of Asian descent (as well as elderly parents) using the "f" word on each other, black racial stereotypes, the state of Michigan portrayed the worst it's ever been, frostbite injury seen as humorous (it is not), someone getting shot with an arrow, children watching their mother and aunt cursing right in front of them while imitating childhood TV characters, a woman demeaning a man's sexuality, all of this is just totally unfunny. I'm only 52 but as I watched this I felt very sad that the audience in my theater just laughed at every dysfunctional, pathetic joke. Is this what the idea of marriage has fallen to amongst people in their 20s and 30s? I also found myself wondering how long it would be until this excuse for a movie ended, finally walking out - couldn't take any more. Has our society fallen this far? I thank God that I am naive to this kind of trash! I will never watch another movie starring Jason Segal, and that includes "How I Met Your Mother" as well.
15 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
just horrible.
steven acker7 May 2012
first review, and usually don't offer up my opinion like this, but this movie was a combination of lame screen-writing, a boring story, and constant bashing of my hometown.

the movie's length was interminable, but not as bad as the single woman sitting in 2 rows in front of me, incessantly laughing by herself at every non-funny joke.

the ending was cute, but by 2 hours i was hoping the romance would end poorly.

I'm looking forward to my next review of a movie i actually....enjoyed.

if anyone was interested in moving to Ann arbor, seeing this movie would ablate any consideration. please...this movie misrepresents everything about the city...couldn't find a better place to settle, raise a family and live in a vibrant urban area than Ann arbor..
16 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Asian stereotypes galore
drdurden702 February 2013
These are just in the first 30 minutes of this piece of crap.

1. There's the "this Korean, that Korean" in buddy's engagement party song 2. What's with the inexplicably mute father's Asian girlfriend? 3. Why does the Asian guy at Michigan have the phoniest accent? 4. There's the Indian guy at restaurant he's applying for, from 40 year old Virgin, who I guess is funny, because he says "fuck" with a Jamaican accent.

Stopped watching this crap after 30 minutes. This is why Hollywood sucks. There are too many white, Jewish guys who have their yarmulkes so far up their privileged Lilly asses, they don't know what the world is really like.
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
One of the worst films of the year, one my ten worst ever.
galvanekps30 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Wife and I watched this movie with high expectations because of Jason Segeland his previous work. 124 minutes later neither one of us had cracked so much as smile, she was utterly offended while I was less so as I've come to expect this dreck from the formulaic romantic "comedies" that are marketed towards women.

Unique only in the level of outright disdain that Hollywood holds for men that is on exhibit here, it is so thick it practically drips off the screen. Every male character, and I mean EVERY one, is a caricature of one type or another of men as slacked jawed, mouth breathing imbeciles who might likely forget to breath or constantly soil themselves were it not for the highly intelligent, wise beyond their years, always sexy and dynamic no matter what women whose lives are limited because of them.

Spoilers Begin HERE: Pretty standard fare now from Hollywood in which the never ending indignation heaped upon one particularly dim-witted male by his manipulative but clearly superior romantic interest is somehow intended to somehow be funny.

In this version one particular clod, played by Jason Segel, is made to look like the bad guy once again because despite his best groveling, boot licking and subservience to his fiancé, up to and including giving up his promising career in San Francisco and putting his entire life and their plans on hold in order to follow her like a love sick puppy to Michigan so she can pursue her post graduate work - the underlying implication that everyone knows academia is so much more inherently worthy than any other career one might choose its a given he would do this strikes one like a sledgehammer - he has the unmitigated gall to react badly when she oh so nobly reveals her recent indiscretion to him with her department head and mentor. Shame on him and how dare he try to shackle her sexuality or some similar clap trap they like to spout in LA these days.

The course of this film is so utterly predictable that no sooner had Rhys Ifans' character been introduced my wife declared "oh well I guess we know who she's hooking up with already." Not to worry though despite having shattered Segel's life in multiple ways and after having spent several sleeping her way into a highly coveted job but not realizing it because she's so innocent and clearly entitled to the job Emily Blunt has "earned" she will ultimately rescue Jason from the clutches of a 23 year old bombshell and their empty, obviously meaningless relationship. But hey, that is after all how how real life works and we all know that every man is just waiting to have the constant affection and physical attention of a younger beautiful woman replaced by the stiletto heal, lash and leash held by the hand of the much less attractive but clearly more introspective and deep academic. *pfffth* I'm sorry but I'm laughing as I type this. Not because anything in the film but because I do realize this is how Hollywood view the world. Of course their reunion won't come because she realizes she made the mistake and did her ex-wrong, of course not she perfect so that's not possible. No it only happens after her mentor is revealed to be just another sex crazed power hungry male who ends up telling her she's easily replaced by the next class of groupies and Jason Realizes how badly he needs the presence of his former emotional dominatrix in his life in order to be complete and runs of to purse her.

I'm probably repeating myself having commented on other equally appalling, anti-male films of the "romantic comedy" genre, but if you laugh at any point in this movie or found it the least be redeeming, you should probably seek our professional help to get to the bottom of your deep seated hostility toward men.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
kosmasp7 September 2012
The movie was not as funny as I thought it would be (especially after watching the trailer, which I couldn't avoid doing). But it still was more than alright. I do like Jason Segel and Emily Blunt is not only gorgeous but also very funny. She was also the reason Adjustment Bureau worked. You could see why Matt Damon ... But lets not digress. Although again you can see why Jason Segel (the character he's playing) would fall for Emily Blunts character.

Some obstacles in the movie seem to not make a lot of sense. But then again, life does not make a lot of sense either most of the time. So it does depend on your suspend of disbelief. But if you can do that, you might enjoy a sweet little romantic comedy, that does work, which can't be said about most of the romantic movies being released in recent history.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews