Avaliações de usuários

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Theater kids and Broadway buffs are going to toss their cookies over the movie adaptation of The Last Five Years.

The Last Five Years is the film adaptation of Jason Robert Brown's synonymously titled Chicago premiered and often revived off-Broadway musical.

I never saw the musical, so the movie adaptation The Last Five Years is my first encounter with the material. Cathy is a struggling actress and Jamie is an up-and-coming novelist. They fall in love but happily ever after is not meant to be. The musical looks at the love affair and marriage of Jamie and Cathy over the last five years. Cathy's songs begin at the end and dissolution of their marriage while Jamie's all start at the beginning of their whirlwind romance. The songs and differences in time are told as a narrative by alternating between the two until they meet in the middle. And just an FYI for those that are on the fence in their love of musicals – The Last Five Years is a story that is told almost entirely through song, so you might want to skip this one if you are swaying toward 'nay' in your appreciation.

It seems as though The Last Five Years respects the musical's material to the letter and takes no liberties through the art of adaptation, though I can't say for sure without seeing the actual stage production. Twenty minutes into the film and there have already been four songs and a constant stream of music in the background. As a story of a relationship that ultimately ends in failure, the weight is not evenly distributed between Jamie and Cathy, with Jamie having more priority – perhaps a reflection of the musical's creator Jason Robert Brown's own self-important egocentrism. The Last Five Years wa wants to be this intimate examination of a tempestuous relationship. The film version, however, only manages to superficially gloss over at best without thorough knowledge of the origin source, never pausing long enough to succeed.

As a musical, The Last Five Years is exactly what you would want – well written lyricisms and songs that have emotion and purpose in progressing the story. As a film though, the constant use of songs as snap shot vignettes of the relationships prevents the audience from connecting with the couple's relationship. Had a song or two been removed and a bit more dialogue was substituted then the adaptation would be more successful as a movie. It is right around "The Schmuel Song" at minute thirty-five that this need for editing is apparent.

The Last Five Years is bound to be a hit with the theater crowd and will forever live on their singing little hearts. However, The Last Five Years fails to have a broader reach to intrigue a greater audience.

Please check out our WEBSITE for full REVIEWS of all the recent releases!

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!

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.

Full disclosure: I didn't see the play the play before I saw this movie at the Toronto Film Festival. However, there were MANY fans of the play in the audience, and judging from the reaction and the questions and comments directed to director John LaGravenese and Jeremy Jordan (!!!) who came out after the film finished, they really enjoyed. I also looked up about the play and watched several videos of a few different versions of the play. Also for those who do really love the play and are unsure about how this movie is going to turn out, know 2 things in advance: 1) For the most part, Cathy and Jamie sing with the each other, and we are shown the opposite character's expressions and reactions. I think this was a good decision, and I think it worked out really well 2) LaGravenese stated that the movie is based (essentially copied from) the off-Broadway revival directed by writer James Robert Brown. So there are some changes from the previous off-Broadway production with Norbert Leo Butz and Sherie Rene Scott However, all in all, I really enjoyed this movie. Both Anna Kendrick and Jeremy Jordan are wonderful as Cathy and Jamie. Their story was easy to relate to and sympathetic. I also found the concept of the opposing timelines very interesting, and although it's a bit hard to explain to someone who doesn't know it, I never felt lost or confused with the timelines. I felt, however, with Cathy starting the movie with song "Still Hurting", it made me side with her slightly more than I did with Jamie. But I liked the majority of the songs, although there were a few that slowed the pace too much, like "Part of That". My favorite performance was "Goodbye Until Tomorrow/I Could Never Rescue You"- I particularly liked the staging of it. If you enjoy an intriguing story being told through song with an interesting concept,I highly recommend The Last Five Years.

"I'm still hurting." Cathy Hiatt (Kendrick) is an aspiring actress and her boyfriend Jamie Wellerstein (Jordan) is an aspiring writer. They begin the relationship full of hope and love but when Jamie becomes successful things begin to change. I will open by saying that unlike some people I am in the middle when it comes to musicals. Some people will hear the word and instantly want to either watch it regardless of what it is about or run and hide from the music. They way I view them is that as long as the story is good I will watch. The singing in this was great, but the songs and the whole story to me was just too boring to get into. This is one of the most depressing movies I have seen in a while but besides that I just struggled to get into this and by the end I still really had no connection to the movie. All that said, there will be some people that really enjoy this and will absolutely love it. As for me, it was a big struggle to get through. Overall, all I can say is that this was just not a movie for me at all. I give it a C.

While the idea of telling the story of a relationship out of order isn't half as a quirky or original idea as the interviews with the cast on the DVD would lead you to believe there is still a lot to like about this modern musical adapted to film by the director of PS I Love You.

The main selling point/draw is Anna Kendrick. Not only is she very pretty and funny, but she's also a good singer, who shines in every number.

Her male counterpart was less engaging, but to be fair, when faced with Kendrick, I think anyone would come off second best.

I'm not saying this is the best musical of all time, or even of the last few years, but it has its moments if you're in the musical mood.

Recently I saw a couple of other films starring Anne Kendrick, I was not very impressed with them and so I got the same result for this one as well, even worse. I don't like musicals, especially not the modern ones, well, mostly. This is a short story that comes around 30 minutes, but with those nonsense songs, it became a feature film. Seems a few people liked it, I think they had a reason, but to me it was very boring.

There was no any decent performances, all I saw was the film characters singing facing in one direction. Maybe they were looking at the lyrics board. I suggest don't go for it seeking a normal romance-comedy. If you like the musical, you might enjoy it, other than that, I don't see this would satisfy any average guy. So no offense for those who liked it, but this is totally a skippable film the year.

3/10

This Last 5 Years is a gut punch right from the start that doesn't let up until the very end. In fact, I might say this is one of the saddest movies/ musicals I have ever watched. The film follows the last five years of Cathy(Anna Kendrick) and Jamie's relationship from two different perspectives. Cathy's story is told from the ending to the beginning, while Jamies is told in chronological order from beginning to end. Cathy is a struggling actor, and Jamie is a successful writer (notice the gender imbalance? This movie is full of it). You can't spoil this movie because you are told right off the bat that Jamie left Cathy, and it's painfully clear that he cheated on her, which is one of the downsides of the film. It's hard to get emotionally involved in the film when you know the ending and that it is sad. Also, the tagline is that there are two sides to every breakup-what a joke. Jamie is literally the worst person ever. If I had to vote for the worst character of all, I would vote for Jamie without a second's hesitation. I would take being with any villain over this selfish, whiny, cheating man child, and there is no excuse for what his character does to Cathy! None! I hated him so much that the first time I gave this film a five for Anna Kendrick's performance, which is amazing and heartbreaking. Five because 50 % of the movie is Anna which is amazing, and 50% is Jamie which is awful. However, after rewatching it a few times, I think I was too hard on it. Anna Kendrick's performance is simply fantastic. The way she is able to convey emotion while singing the entire time is beyond amazing. Especially Anna's first two musical numbers are nothing short of perfection. However, I do think it might have been better if they switched the story up a little and Had us start with Cathy's story at the beginning and Jamie's at the end. For one, it would make the story more interesting because we know Jamie is fine with moving on, and it would make us wonder about Cathy's reaction. Secondly, I think I'm still hurting is the best song in the film, so it's a little disappointing when it is right at the start as the other songs aren't as good. Also, Anna looks absolutely stunning in the film. I love seeing her as blonde and seeing how her hair changes over the course of the narrative. And her outfits are amazing. She is nothing short of stunning, and she takes your breath away every scene. Yet, she is still sweet and kind even though her character is with the worst person who ever lived. All in all, It is definitely worth watching once. After that, you can just watch the Cathey parts. Just know it isn't a comedy going in. I've watched it several times, and I have to say I'm Still Hurting!

When the first time i watch this movie i'm kinda surprise that they put back and forth flow for me this movie it's all just about musical nothing more and the script awful it could've gone better i mean i like the acting performance of anna kendrick and jeremy jordan but for me personally it's not more than just a musical that even a college kid can do better than this i wish that richard lagravenese could put more acting than the musical in this movie i'm sure that there's gonna be a lot of good reviews.

It's quite a great movie but there's so many aspects that need to be considered to make this movie became a better one.

I guess you could label this a pop-operetta? From the other reviews I have read here I see this was first an off-Broadway musical ... I have no access to off-Broadway so my only source is the movie.

My first impression was unfavorable as Anna Kendrick is a bit nasal with her singing - BUT - this didn't bother me very long. As the story progresses the plot becomes more interesting and the relationship between Cathy (Anna) & Jamie (Jeremy Jordan) becomes more complex with both moving in different directions. Cathy starting her story at the relationship end & Jamie starting his story at relationship beginning. Most of the songs are well delivered but unfortunately are not memorable. (At least for me)

Jeremy Jordan is quite a capable singer and his delivery of the "The Schmuel Song" is witty & charming. I loved the settings and editing! At movies end I felt I had seen something clever and unique and felt well entertained!!

Making a musical film for the 21st Century audience is not an easy task. But Director Richard LaGravenese has pulled it off with great success!! Enjoy!

I really liked Jeremy Jordan in Smash, so I was looking forward to this. Until the opening credits ended with Anna Kendrick singing in her screechy, ultra-high pitched voice. I had to stop, though I gave it another try a week later. Beyond her horrible voice, I found many of the songs to be cliché, obnoxious and not the least bit modern. Honestly, that stupid song at the beginning where Jamie is singing about how his grandmother will hate her because she isn't Jewish, and doing it while they have sex...who the f' cares what your mother and grandmother think? If they are so intrusive to believe that it is any of their business who you're seeing then you need to set boundaries. Or was this written in the 1950's? It's all so archaic and ridiculous, especially given the way the publishing industry works today. Jamie's constant jubilation regardless of what he's singing is just as annoying as Cathy's screechily whining her way through the film. Spending five years with these two is just too much to ask.

Jamie Wellerstein (Jeremy Jordan) and Cathy Hiatt (Anna Kendrick) have ended their marriage five years after they first met. The movie moves back and forth throughout their relationship. They met in Ohio. He's a writer who often goes to NYC for work. The long distance is a struggle. They get married and live in NYC. Meanwhile she's pursuing a Broadway acting career.

Anna Kendrick continues to hit it out of the park with her performances. She has the sincerity. Jeremy Jordan isn't quite as compelling by comparison. He's still a perfectly fine performer. As for the confusing timeline mashup, I'm sure it's more compelling on Broadway. Memento comes to mind right away. However Nolan understands that movies are a visual medium and he uses black and white as well to distinguish the two timelines. The visual style is in general secondary in this musical. It's not bad but nothing really stands out.