‘The Five-Year Engagement’ Drags On and On…

Jason Segel and Emily Blunt are some of the finest, quirkiest, and charismatic actors working in the movies today. Whether it’s Segel in the latest Duplass brother’s film Jeff, Who Lives At Home, or Blunt in the quiet, likely unseen romance Salmon Fishing In The Yemen, these two young, nuanced, soon to be stars, each represent diamonds in the rough that is mainstream filmmaking.

This is precisely why The Five-Year Engagement is such a let down: with a consistently tired script filled with redundant, often unfunny humor and lacking any sort of natural rhythm, both immensely talented performers take a backseat to dull slapstick comedy and grating pacing.

What’s not to be criticized, however, is the chemistry between our two protagonists, Tom (Segel) and Violet (Blunt). Tom is head chef at a high-end restaurant in San Francisco, and Violet is waiting to be accepted into the Social science program at the University of Michigan.

As the film opens Tom proposes to Violet. She enthusiastically says yes. They’re in love. But before the wedding can be planned, an acceptance letter arrives in the mail for Violet.

Being the warm and understanding guy he is Tom agrees to relocate to Michigan, giving up both his fantastic job and friends, for the sake of his hopeful wife to fulfill her academic dreams. Problems arise, as one may expect (who the hell moves from San Francisco to Michigan?). Still, the idealistic couple believes in the notion that love will prevail and conquer all problems.

Nicholas Stoller, in now his third directorial feature, tells the simple story of two people falling in and out of love. In The Five-Year Engagement we see romance form, dwindle, and then rekindle again. Tom and Violet, as most of us do, have their highs and lows. The film asks if loving someone passionately is enough to work through life altering complications?

While The Five Year Engagement may be more sentimental and romantic than Stoller’s past efforts (the cute, funny Forgetting Sarah Marshall or the wacky low-brow raunch fest Get Him To The Greek), it’s also his least effective.

There’s no questioning the intimacy between Tom and Violet. But the film drags our likable protagonists through so much ineptly staged, utterly contrived sequences, that so many of the moments worth caring for get lost in the shuffle of amateur screenwriting.

For example, each character has their bout with another person, each character inexplicably misunderstands each other, each character goes through an identity crisis, and each character fails to appreciate what they have in front of them. This is just another frustrating trademark of Hollywood cinema: having smart characters perform or say, utterly idiotic things.

Albeit all the flaws, The Five-Year Engagement isn’t worthless, it’s just not worth watching. It stoops its intellect to crass, cheap humor that consistently underwhelms (every time a character mentions death, the film cuts to a funeral where an elderly grandmother or grandfather has died), and places our adoring leads in dull situations.

In short, The Five-Year Engagement takes a whole lot of time to get to where it’s going, and when we finally arrive, it’s not nearly worth the build up.

And no one enjoys an anticlimax: especially in romance.

2 out 4 stars

C

You may follow me on twitter @SamFragoso

TAGS: , , ,

7 Comments

  1. Gibbs says:

    It seems that pacing is always an issue with Apatow-produced movies, as they often stretch well beyond the two hour mark. Too bad, I liked the potential of this.

  2. ruth says:

    I like the two leads but I’m only mildly interested in this. I don’t even know if I want to rent this one now.

  3. Pete says:

    I’ll wait for this on rental. Shame… with those two as the leads you would hope for more! Also really quite liked Stoller’s last two but I guess they’re also a bit forgettable.

  4. Amy says:

    Nice review, shame you didn’t like it though. I’ll probably still see it at the cinema to give Jason Segel the benefit of the doubt; he can do no wrong in my eyes!

  5. Nick Prigge says:

    Great review, Sam, and I agree with your points, particularly the “grating pacing.” The editing is abysmal and the writing is a severe letdown.

  6. The Five Year engagement hasn’t been on my radar much and judging by the short clip that I watched the other day, I think it may be more useful as a rental than an in-theater choice. I have no issues with making room for a romcom in my entertainment schedule but I do have a problem with spending my time watching one in a theater, if it’s much longer than it needs to be. Then again, maybe that’s (longer rather than shorter scenes) just the style of some directors.

  7. Andrew says:

    For me this is just a textbook case of why editing is so important. There are so many instances of small bits of fat all over the film that could have been trimmed really, really easily; I’m not sure why they were left in in the first place, as they don’t add anything that’s especially necessary for the narrative to hold up. No joke, there’s about 20 minutes of footage that could have been cut from bits and pieces here and there lasting no more than 30 seconds to 2 minutes each.

    But other than that, it’s solid. Blunt and Segel work wonders together, and the script is incredibly funny– if you like Stoller’s and Segel’s brand of humor. The only thing holding Engagement back is its eye-popping running time.

Leave a Comment


Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

Trackbacks