VALUTAZIONE IMDb
5,9/10
11.102
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
Struggling dancer Cathy (Anna Kendrick) sees her whirlwind marriage start fall apart as her new husband's writing career takes off ahead of hers.
The pair tell their story through song, Cathy's beginning at the end and working backwards towards happier times early in their relationship, whereas the more level/pig-headed Jeremy does just the opposite, running away from what brought them together to start with and focusing on current problems.
It is more gritty and real than most fluffy rom-coms but viewers not au fait with musical theatre will feel that depth is lost in the all-singing narrative style. If you were left bereft by the silence of The Artist and couldn't stand the spontaneous outbursts of Moulin Rouge, then steer well clear of this.
Straight-up rom-com fans won't necessarily appreciate The Last Five Years either, it's pitched equally at Broadway lovers (it's based on a Broadway musical) and/or low-budget indie flick fans and even then, the two styles may not sit well together for you.
Neither of our leads have pleasantly bland pop voices either, both are classically trained vocal powerhouses-again, not everyone's cup of tea. The Last Five Years earns three stars, however, as it does what it wanted to do fairly well, it's all a question of personal taste.
The pair tell their story through song, Cathy's beginning at the end and working backwards towards happier times early in their relationship, whereas the more level/pig-headed Jeremy does just the opposite, running away from what brought them together to start with and focusing on current problems.
It is more gritty and real than most fluffy rom-coms but viewers not au fait with musical theatre will feel that depth is lost in the all-singing narrative style. If you were left bereft by the silence of The Artist and couldn't stand the spontaneous outbursts of Moulin Rouge, then steer well clear of this.
Straight-up rom-com fans won't necessarily appreciate The Last Five Years either, it's pitched equally at Broadway lovers (it's based on a Broadway musical) and/or low-budget indie flick fans and even then, the two styles may not sit well together for you.
Neither of our leads have pleasantly bland pop voices either, both are classically trained vocal powerhouses-again, not everyone's cup of tea. The Last Five Years earns three stars, however, as it does what it wanted to do fairly well, it's all a question of personal taste.
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.
Part of my resolution to have a movie review blog was to watch movies I wouldn't otherwise see, and "The Last Five Years" is not a movie I would've seen in theaters but I might have picked it up on DVD or if it was Netflix. I'm not a hater of musicals in the least, and I'm not one of those who doesn't like books or musicals turned into movies, but this movie is one reason why those people exist and why it's easy to criticize the adaptation.
The movie tells the story of a young Jewish novelist and a struggling actress he falls in love with. The plot and characters have an obvious appeal to people in musical theater, something I've learned to expect in any modern musical similar to how novelists like to have their main characters be novelists or bookstore owners (or both). The annoying part of this movie is that it's all the movie is. If I had to sum up the movie it'd be two people in creative lines of work with varying success having passionate, almost over-the-top duets. And that's the entire movie. And it's all sung (which I'm not outright against since it worked so well in "Umbrellas of Cherbourg").
Jamie is the younger, more successful, more arrogant novelist in the relationship while Cathy seems to have more charm and personability though she can't seem to get a break in her career. Questions of resentment and female independence in her career (and the comments seem to be just token nods) arise for moments though it sinks back down in the quicksand of necking that the two characters seem to do way too much.
What's innovative about how the story is told, though (and I see this as one of two of the movie's redeeming aspects) is that the plot moves in two directions, one from the beginning with Cathy's memories of their marriage, and the other where Jamie's memories are told from the beginning. Something's to be said for how men and women remember relationships different, what they saw as the best moments and what they saw as the worst. The film does play favorites with Cathy, though which is no surprise given the history of plots in musical theater and their primary demographic.
The second strong part of this movie is Anna Kendrick's performance. I was dubious at first but she carries herself well and has more nuance in her character portrayal than her male co-lead. Her voice is good, not great, and her acting ability supplements her singing very well.
The main problem with this movie is tone. Yes, it's a rehashing of a romance from memory from two perspectives, but it is all singing, and all centered directly around romance depicted in a small set of actions between two actors. It's the false idea that anything worth telling about a relationship must be the romantic interactions, as if there wasn't anything else worth recalling about two people being in love. And by romantic interplay I mean talking through transitional points in the relationship, fights about expectations and communication, and physicality (which may seem broad but it doesn't come across as such in the movie). That's 99% of the movie and everything the characters do revolves around that strong theme. The problem is that it's too strong of a seasoning. It's where a spice becomes the meat and you miss the stable taste of flesh rather than a watery stock or sprinkling of flavor. It's like George Lucas yelling "faster and more intense" to his actors in the first Star Wars movie without any further direction. I imagine the director doing a similar thing with the two leads in this, "passionate and more in love" which inevitably will lead to an overbearing depiction of the same thing we've seen throughout the movie. This movie will appeal to viewers who already adore musicals but will not win over any new fans to the genre.
The movie tells the story of a young Jewish novelist and a struggling actress he falls in love with. The plot and characters have an obvious appeal to people in musical theater, something I've learned to expect in any modern musical similar to how novelists like to have their main characters be novelists or bookstore owners (or both). The annoying part of this movie is that it's all the movie is. If I had to sum up the movie it'd be two people in creative lines of work with varying success having passionate, almost over-the-top duets. And that's the entire movie. And it's all sung (which I'm not outright against since it worked so well in "Umbrellas of Cherbourg").
Jamie is the younger, more successful, more arrogant novelist in the relationship while Cathy seems to have more charm and personability though she can't seem to get a break in her career. Questions of resentment and female independence in her career (and the comments seem to be just token nods) arise for moments though it sinks back down in the quicksand of necking that the two characters seem to do way too much.
What's innovative about how the story is told, though (and I see this as one of two of the movie's redeeming aspects) is that the plot moves in two directions, one from the beginning with Cathy's memories of their marriage, and the other where Jamie's memories are told from the beginning. Something's to be said for how men and women remember relationships different, what they saw as the best moments and what they saw as the worst. The film does play favorites with Cathy, though which is no surprise given the history of plots in musical theater and their primary demographic.
The second strong part of this movie is Anna Kendrick's performance. I was dubious at first but she carries herself well and has more nuance in her character portrayal than her male co-lead. Her voice is good, not great, and her acting ability supplements her singing very well.
The main problem with this movie is tone. Yes, it's a rehashing of a romance from memory from two perspectives, but it is all singing, and all centered directly around romance depicted in a small set of actions between two actors. It's the false idea that anything worth telling about a relationship must be the romantic interactions, as if there wasn't anything else worth recalling about two people being in love. And by romantic interplay I mean talking through transitional points in the relationship, fights about expectations and communication, and physicality (which may seem broad but it doesn't come across as such in the movie). That's 99% of the movie and everything the characters do revolves around that strong theme. The problem is that it's too strong of a seasoning. It's where a spice becomes the meat and you miss the stable taste of flesh rather than a watery stock or sprinkling of flavor. It's like George Lucas yelling "faster and more intense" to his actors in the first Star Wars movie without any further direction. I imagine the director doing a similar thing with the two leads in this, "passionate and more in love" which inevitably will lead to an overbearing depiction of the same thing we've seen throughout the movie. This movie will appeal to viewers who already adore musicals but will not win over any new fans to the genre.
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.
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.
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 esecuzione1 ora 34 minuti
- Colore
- Proporzioni
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti
Divario superiore
By what name was The Last Five Years (2014) officially released in India in English?
Rispondi