VALUTAZIONE IMDb
5,9/10
11.107
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaA struggling actress and her novelist lover each illustrate the struggle and deconstruction of their love affair.A struggling actress and her novelist lover each illustrate the struggle and deconstruction of their love affair.A struggling actress and her novelist lover each illustrate the struggle and deconstruction of their love affair.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Premi
- 1 vittoria e 1 candidatura in totale
Betina Joly
- Stacy Rosen
- (as Bettina Joly)
I.Ginzburg
- Ellen Kaplan
- (as Upa Inspace)
Robert Immerman
- Shapiro
- (as Bob Immerman)
Recensioni in evidenza
I really liked the way the story lines were a reverse parallel, with one character starting at the end and working backwards, and the other starting at the beginning and going forwards until they converged.
I liked the way the plot didn't go with the usual romantic clichés, but added some complexity to what could have been just another boy meets girl story.
The music wasn't overly memorable, but there was a clever catchy quality to the lyrics much of the time, and the tunes were sufficiently serviceable to not detract.
BUT...why oh why do directors use such fakey lip synching? I really think it would be far better to use live singing, even with an occasional flaw (as, for example, was done with Les Miserables, which took real guts given the scope of that film!) I understand that the actors did at least do their own singing, but still, the lip sync makes the inherently unlikely format of a musical frequently seem silly--and I am actually a big fan of the old, classic musicals like The Sound of Music, etc.
Also, it was so obvious that they were not actually singing at those moments, because you HAVE GOT TO OPEN YOUR MOUTH to make those sounds! Finally, and this may just be a personal (lack of) preference, but I found Anna Kendrick's voice to often have an unpleasant, fingernails-on-chalkboard edge to it.
I liked the way the plot didn't go with the usual romantic clichés, but added some complexity to what could have been just another boy meets girl story.
The music wasn't overly memorable, but there was a clever catchy quality to the lyrics much of the time, and the tunes were sufficiently serviceable to not detract.
BUT...why oh why do directors use such fakey lip synching? I really think it would be far better to use live singing, even with an occasional flaw (as, for example, was done with Les Miserables, which took real guts given the scope of that film!) I understand that the actors did at least do their own singing, but still, the lip sync makes the inherently unlikely format of a musical frequently seem silly--and I am actually a big fan of the old, classic musicals like The Sound of Music, etc.
Also, it was so obvious that they were not actually singing at those moments, because you HAVE GOT TO OPEN YOUR MOUTH to make those sounds! Finally, and this may just be a personal (lack of) preference, but I found Anna Kendrick's voice to often have an unpleasant, fingernails-on-chalkboard edge to it.
Having seen an amazing production of this in Auckland (Last Tapes Theatre Company), this much more expensive, full blown movie fell flat for me. I think Jason Robert Brown's musical was ultimately misunderstood here.
The structure in the original is that they sing solo, him starting at the start, her at the end, they meet in the middle when they get married and share their only duet, and then spin off into solo again. Although "together", each is alone inside his/her own emotions, and although trying to connect, they constantly miss each other. Only when they are getting married and singing a duet are they really in sync. The movie muddled this by trying to have both him and her taking part in every song throughout. An acting challenge that failed :/ The best moments were when they were singing to no one in particular, for her it was "Jamie is over and Jamie is done" and for him "Hold on, the panic recedes". This was when the actors were finally allowed to perform the songs the way they were supposed to be performed.
Basically, I thing the focus of each song is supposed to be on the subjective experience. But the movie missed this point, and tried to make every song mimic a real life conversation. This failed, although you could see how hard both actors were trying. The chemistry was very forced. Singing a conversation is awkward enough, but the lyrics are so deep and vulnerable, no one would say those things aloud. It was especially awkward when they were sung at his friends in a bar or at reporters at a party. Those poor extras on the receiving end of the songs didn't know what to do with themselves. The songs are meant to be confidante confessions to the audience, coming from deep within the characters, obviously not casual conversation. In general, the misunderstanding of the unique genre and structure of the original transformed The Last Five Years into a cringey, low-level musical.
The original is actually more a song cycle, it has virtually no spoken dialogue, like an opera. And it creates the same height of emotion as opera does. Performed, even if the director lacks creativity to make it come alive believably, it should at least not distract us from the amazing poetry in the lyrics. But there was a lot of (really crappy) dialogue inserted, a lot of unnecessary shots of miscellaneous stuff that was really distracting during the singing.
Instead of an incredibly powerful set of insights into how relationships dissolve, this was just another Hollywoody movie about guy meets girl. And what's sad is now the majority will think that that's what The Last Five Years is. But it's actually so much more than that!
Having said that, no matter how badly adapted, I don't think The Last Five Years could ever suck, the score and text is just too amazing and this will shine through. And despite awkwardness, there were some really good moments from both him and her. I would recommend listening to the songs rather than watching this movie though, or better still, try and see it live.
The structure in the original is that they sing solo, him starting at the start, her at the end, they meet in the middle when they get married and share their only duet, and then spin off into solo again. Although "together", each is alone inside his/her own emotions, and although trying to connect, they constantly miss each other. Only when they are getting married and singing a duet are they really in sync. The movie muddled this by trying to have both him and her taking part in every song throughout. An acting challenge that failed :/ The best moments were when they were singing to no one in particular, for her it was "Jamie is over and Jamie is done" and for him "Hold on, the panic recedes". This was when the actors were finally allowed to perform the songs the way they were supposed to be performed.
Basically, I thing the focus of each song is supposed to be on the subjective experience. But the movie missed this point, and tried to make every song mimic a real life conversation. This failed, although you could see how hard both actors were trying. The chemistry was very forced. Singing a conversation is awkward enough, but the lyrics are so deep and vulnerable, no one would say those things aloud. It was especially awkward when they were sung at his friends in a bar or at reporters at a party. Those poor extras on the receiving end of the songs didn't know what to do with themselves. The songs are meant to be confidante confessions to the audience, coming from deep within the characters, obviously not casual conversation. In general, the misunderstanding of the unique genre and structure of the original transformed The Last Five Years into a cringey, low-level musical.
The original is actually more a song cycle, it has virtually no spoken dialogue, like an opera. And it creates the same height of emotion as opera does. Performed, even if the director lacks creativity to make it come alive believably, it should at least not distract us from the amazing poetry in the lyrics. But there was a lot of (really crappy) dialogue inserted, a lot of unnecessary shots of miscellaneous stuff that was really distracting during the singing.
Instead of an incredibly powerful set of insights into how relationships dissolve, this was just another Hollywoody movie about guy meets girl. And what's sad is now the majority will think that that's what The Last Five Years is. But it's actually so much more than that!
Having said that, no matter how badly adapted, I don't think The Last Five Years could ever suck, the score and text is just too amazing and this will shine through. And despite awkwardness, there were some really good moments from both him and her. I would recommend listening to the songs rather than watching this movie though, or better still, try and see it live.
Greetings again from the darkness. Adapting a hit stage production to the big screen is always a bit challenging. When it's a full blown musical, the challenge grows exponentially. Throw in a highly unusual story-telling structure and limit 99% of the screen time to two characters and, well, a filmmaker is either off-the-charts ambitious or one who truly enjoys suffering for art.
Director Richard LaGravenese (P.S. I Love You) brings the hit off-Broadway musical by Jason Robert Brown to the screen, and features Anna Kendrick and Jeremy Jordan as Cathy and Jamie, respectively. Ms. Kendrick has become the go-to actress for musicals with Into the Woods (as Cinderella) and the Pitch Perfect movies. She is a wonderful singer and a fine actress. Mr. Jordan is best known for TV's "Smash" and for "Newsies" on Broadway. He too is a talented singer.
Surprisingly, it's not the talented leads that provide the most interest here it's the story structure. As per the title, the story follows the couple's relationship over a five year period. The opening scene features Cathy reading and reacting to the break-up note left by Jamie. The second scene features Jamie describing his joy when he first falls for Cathy, as they romp in bed. See, Cathy's story goes from the end to the beginning, while Jamie's story goes from the beginning to the end intersecting only at the marriage proposal in the park. It's a fascinating way to tell a story – not just two perspectives, but also in reverse order of each other!
The song lyrics act as the dialogue, and that's where the transition from stage to screen falls a bit short. While the lyrics are clever and adequately describe each relationship change, those same lyrics and the non-stop singing, prevent the viewers from ever connecting to the characters and more importantly, prevent us from understanding how these two characters ever connected to each other. Rather than a love story, it comes across as a moment of passion that turns into a relationship between two people who don't have much in common and don't particularly care for each other. And the real crux of the tension stems from Jamie's skyrocketing novel writing career versus Cathy's going-nowhere-but-Ohio acting career.
Cathy starts sad and ends happy, while Jamie starts happy (he found a Shiksa princess!) and finds a way to end his misery (writing a Dear Jane note). It's Sunset to Sunrise, and Sunrise to Sunset. The "goodbye" finale is very creative and well done. This unusual story structure is quite interesting, and the lyrics are sharp it's the lack of spirit in the music, and the 90 minutes of the same two voices that prevent this from being something special.
Director Richard LaGravenese (P.S. I Love You) brings the hit off-Broadway musical by Jason Robert Brown to the screen, and features Anna Kendrick and Jeremy Jordan as Cathy and Jamie, respectively. Ms. Kendrick has become the go-to actress for musicals with Into the Woods (as Cinderella) and the Pitch Perfect movies. She is a wonderful singer and a fine actress. Mr. Jordan is best known for TV's "Smash" and for "Newsies" on Broadway. He too is a talented singer.
Surprisingly, it's not the talented leads that provide the most interest here it's the story structure. As per the title, the story follows the couple's relationship over a five year period. The opening scene features Cathy reading and reacting to the break-up note left by Jamie. The second scene features Jamie describing his joy when he first falls for Cathy, as they romp in bed. See, Cathy's story goes from the end to the beginning, while Jamie's story goes from the beginning to the end intersecting only at the marriage proposal in the park. It's a fascinating way to tell a story – not just two perspectives, but also in reverse order of each other!
The song lyrics act as the dialogue, and that's where the transition from stage to screen falls a bit short. While the lyrics are clever and adequately describe each relationship change, those same lyrics and the non-stop singing, prevent the viewers from ever connecting to the characters and more importantly, prevent us from understanding how these two characters ever connected to each other. Rather than a love story, it comes across as a moment of passion that turns into a relationship between two people who don't have much in common and don't particularly care for each other. And the real crux of the tension stems from Jamie's skyrocketing novel writing career versus Cathy's going-nowhere-but-Ohio acting career.
Cathy starts sad and ends happy, while Jamie starts happy (he found a Shiksa princess!) and finds a way to end his misery (writing a Dear Jane note). It's Sunset to Sunrise, and Sunrise to Sunset. The "goodbye" finale is very creative and well done. This unusual story structure is quite interesting, and the lyrics are sharp it's the lack of spirit in the music, and the 90 minutes of the same two voices that prevent this from being something special.
This film tells the story of an actress and her novelist husband, chronicling their encounter, marriage and divorce.
I didn't know "The Last Five Years" is a musical, so I was quite baffled by the initial scene of Anna Kendrick singing for a full five minutes. Then, I get to enjoy many beautiful songs and lovely scenery. Colours are lush, even the trees look very saturated with striking green. It's a beautiful film to watch, but I think there's little emphasis on the plot. There's very little build up of the plot, and the story does not flow to the following segment because every song is just so long. There's just not enough time to fit five years into ninety minutes, especially when every song is at least five minutes long.
On the whole, "The Last Five Years" is a nice film, but I will forget about it on a few months.
I didn't know "The Last Five Years" is a musical, so I was quite baffled by the initial scene of Anna Kendrick singing for a full five minutes. Then, I get to enjoy many beautiful songs and lovely scenery. Colours are lush, even the trees look very saturated with striking green. It's a beautiful film to watch, but I think there's little emphasis on the plot. There's very little build up of the plot, and the story does not flow to the following segment because every song is just so long. There's just not enough time to fit five years into ninety minutes, especially when every song is at least five minutes long.
On the whole, "The Last Five Years" is a nice film, but I will forget about it on a few months.
This movie worried me. Being a fan of the original work, I was truly worried. Given the intricate and complicated mode or storytelling, as well as the music, which is advanced music, far above the simple rock chords of RENT or PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, I worried that either it wouldn't transfer well or that the charm and emotional pull of the piece would be lost. Let me set those worries right to rest - this musical is everything the original work was and more, but more importantly, this musical is fresh. What do I mean by fresh? Well, the original work was performed in 2002. Some of the lyrics reflect that (eg, references to Borders bookstores). But the musical has been revitalized for a more modern audience. Skype is used, Russell Crowe's less-than-wonderful musical turn is referenced. The orchestration is updated, but not mangled, to fit a more mainstream audience.
Now, onto the actual movie.
First, the stars. This may be one of the best musical movies ever made, simply because of the casting. For those that don't know, the story focuses on only two characters - Cathy and Jamie. No one else sings, and virtually no one else has any sort of character. Most oftentimes, the film industry casts star pull over talent, as evidenced by Russell Crowe as Javert, Gerard Butler as the Phantom of the Opera, and Johnny Depp as Sweeney Todd. But this is not the case here. While Anna Kendrick has some star pull with her recent success, she is clearly more talent that star power. She truly shines as Cathy, a slightly bookish, slightly wimpy musical theater star-in-the-making. Her vocal power is just what this role has been yearning for. On the other end of the spectrum, you have Jeremy Jordan, whom only musical theater fans will know. His success on the cult favorite hit, SMASH, notwithstanding, Jordan is here purely for talent. And what a talent he is! Surpassing everyone who has played the role thus far, Jordan winks and smiles his way through as the impish egotistical, yet loving Jamie. The stars are perfect for the roles they're in - nuff said.
Now, the direction. Richard LaGravanese works wonders with the movie. The way he chose to present each scene and how they all tie together in the end is a work of art and a joy to behold as a musical theater nerd myself.
Third, the cinematography. This is the ONLY (read: only) slight qualm I have with the film. The shooting style, at times, feel cagey, and sometimes too intimate. This is a very intimate story, but sometimes, the camera work feels like it was not used to its full effect. Then, however, there are times when the movie works beautifully on a cinematographic level. The sequence, "A Summer In Ohio" is one of the best-choreographed and best-shot musical numbers ever. "The Next Ten Minutes", however, is one of the worst. You're getting both ends of the spectrum here.
There's not much else to talk about. There was no big special effects budget. There is no supporting cast to speak of. The music is immune to criticism. If you love musical theater, The Last Five years stage play, love stories, or just interesting movies, this is the movie for you!
Now, onto the actual movie.
First, the stars. This may be one of the best musical movies ever made, simply because of the casting. For those that don't know, the story focuses on only two characters - Cathy and Jamie. No one else sings, and virtually no one else has any sort of character. Most oftentimes, the film industry casts star pull over talent, as evidenced by Russell Crowe as Javert, Gerard Butler as the Phantom of the Opera, and Johnny Depp as Sweeney Todd. But this is not the case here. While Anna Kendrick has some star pull with her recent success, she is clearly more talent that star power. She truly shines as Cathy, a slightly bookish, slightly wimpy musical theater star-in-the-making. Her vocal power is just what this role has been yearning for. On the other end of the spectrum, you have Jeremy Jordan, whom only musical theater fans will know. His success on the cult favorite hit, SMASH, notwithstanding, Jordan is here purely for talent. And what a talent he is! Surpassing everyone who has played the role thus far, Jordan winks and smiles his way through as the impish egotistical, yet loving Jamie. The stars are perfect for the roles they're in - nuff said.
Now, the direction. Richard LaGravanese works wonders with the movie. The way he chose to present each scene and how they all tie together in the end is a work of art and a joy to behold as a musical theater nerd myself.
Third, the cinematography. This is the ONLY (read: only) slight qualm I have with the film. The shooting style, at times, feel cagey, and sometimes too intimate. This is a very intimate story, but sometimes, the camera work feels like it was not used to its full effect. Then, however, there are times when the movie works beautifully on a cinematographic level. The sequence, "A Summer In Ohio" is one of the best-choreographed and best-shot musical numbers ever. "The Next Ten Minutes", however, is one of the worst. You're getting both ends of the spectrum here.
There's not much else to talk about. There was no big special effects budget. There is no supporting cast to speak of. The music is immune to criticism. If you love musical theater, The Last Five years stage play, love stories, or just interesting movies, this is the movie for you!
Lo sapevi?
- QuizAnna Kendrick and Jeremy Jordan sang 11 of the 14 songs live, in multiple takes, due to camera set ups. "If I Didn't Believe in You" is shot in one continuous camera move. Jeremy Jordan sang the song 14 times straight through. Anna Kendrick sang "Still Hurting" 17 times over five camera set-ups.
- BlooperWhen Cathy is singing "Goodbye Until Tomorrow" we are to believe that it is 2008. The license plate of the car outside of her apartment is the current NY state gold and blue design, which wasn't put into effect until 2010.
- Citazioni
[first lines]
Cathy Hiatt: [singing] Jamie is over and Jamie is gone. / Jamie's decided it's time to move on. / Jamie has new dreams he's building upon. / And I'm still hurting.
- ConnessioniFeatured in Conan: Anna Kendrick/Gabrielle Union/Lee Ann Womack (2015)
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is The Last Five Years?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Siti ufficiali
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- The Last 5 Years
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 3.500.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 145.427 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 42.042 USD
- 15 feb 2015
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 292.092 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 34min(94 min)
- Colore
- Proporzioni
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti