NOTE IMDb
6,2/10
104 k
MA NOTE
Un an après leur rencontre, Tom demande en mariage sa petite amie, Violet, mais des événements inattendus continuent de les surprendre alors qu'ils cherchent désespérément à se marier.Un an après leur rencontre, Tom demande en mariage sa petite amie, Violet, mais des événements inattendus continuent de les surprendre alors qu'ils cherchent désespérément à se marier.Un an après leur rencontre, Tom demande en mariage sa petite amie, Violet, mais des événements inattendus continuent de les surprendre alors qu'ils cherchent désespérément à se marier.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 1 nomination au total
Avis à la une
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.
Daniel FilmPulse.net
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.
Daniel FilmPulse.net
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.
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.
Longer than it felt and for sure longer than it should have been. Although there were many funny actors there weren't many true jaja moments. For 2hrs all this made me do was chuckle a couple of times but really it was a bit boring... yet I didn't hate it. Kevin Hart needed a better skit or given rein to be his funny self. Brie and Pratt were their funny selves (love their version of such an iconic song:). They were the actual funny parts of the movie. Blunt and Jason were meh. Being the main actors they were definitely were miscast. Jason is a good actor when he has great supporting actors to let his comedy shine. Emily always show's potential to be funny but much like Jason requires supporting help. Overall it's a decent dry comedy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesIn order to fine-tune her character Suzie's British accent, Alison Brie listened to recordings of readings provided by her British co-star Emily Blunt.
- GaffesThroughout the film, Violet and her colleagues refer to people taking part in their psychology experiments as "subjects". This term is no longer used in psychology (and has not been used for decades) as it is thought to be disrespectful and has unethical, dehumanising connotations. Rather, today psychologists use the term "participant" to refer to people who take part in an experiment.
- Citations
Alex Eilhauer: Seeing you chop onions is depressing. It's like watching Michael Jordan take a shit.
- Versions alternativesAn Extended Version which runs 7 minutes longer than the Theatrical Version, at 131 minutes was released with the Blu-ray releases in 2012.
- ConnexionsFeatured in The Tonight Show with Jay Leno: Épisode #20.126 (2012)
- Bandes originalesJackie Wilson Said (I'm In Heaven When You Smile)
Written by Van Morrison
Performed by Kevin Rowland & Dexys Midnight Runners
Courtesy of Mercury Records Limited
Under license from Universal Music Enterprises
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Eternamente comprometidos
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 30 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 28 835 528 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 10 610 060 $US
- 29 avr. 2012
- Montant brut mondial
- 54 169 363 $US
- Durée2 heures 4 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
What was the official certification given to 5 ans de réflexion (2012) in Italy?
Répondre