IMDb > The Five-Year Engagement (2012) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Five-Year Engagement
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
The Five-Year Engagement More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 2 of 14:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 139 reviews in total 

15 out of 25 people found the following review useful:

A funny 90-minute movie that was 2 hours long

Author: NRGDude from United States
8 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 31 people found the following review useful:

Five-Years... Could Have Been Shorter Though

Author: josh_youngbwfc from United Kingdom
2 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!

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 31 people found the following review useful:

A waste of time and money

Author: jrrdube from Canada
6 May 2012

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

19 out of 33 people found the following review useful:

Not really a comedy

Author: rogerdob from United States
9 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

One of the worst films of the year, one my ten worst ever.

Author: galvanekps from United States
30 August 2012

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 24 people found the following review useful:

First time I walked out of a movie in 20 years!

Author: Drewboy-2
28 April 2012

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 26 people found the following review useful:

Seriously, don't bother.

Author: Catherz_siobhan-419-124390
10 July 2012

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

39 out of 74 people found the following review useful:

Extremely funny, but dark and serious at times

Author: hhz76 from Austin, Texas
4 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

44 out of 84 people found the following review useful:

Horrible in every way

Author: felliott-133-6341 from Australia
15 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

You'll Think You Spent Five Years Watching This Drivel

Author: Wendell Ricketts from Florida, USA
5 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 2 of 14:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history