|The Five-Year Engagement (Hi Def)||Resolution: 1920x1040 px||Total Size: 1841 Mb|
|The Five-Year Engagement (Hi Def)||Resolution: 1280x696 px||Total Size: 5592 Mb|
|The Five-Year Engagement (DivX)||Resolution: 640x352 px||Total Size: 703 Mb|
We have taken some photos of "The Five-Year Engagement". They represent actual movie quality.
ItBitKitty (13 May 2013)
Oddly enough it had most of the ingredients to be a good movie but thereality of it fell flat. The premise is solid. The acting solid. thewriting, Solid. Unfortunately something about the recipe just didn'tjell into anything really worth while. It seems like the movie couldhave been a lot more interesting if the main male character had justtaken his girlfriends advice about midway through the movie and startedhis own restaurant. At least it would have been over sooner. A goodmovie to watch if you are just killing time. Though a shout out to theactors that play his best friend and her sister. They steal every scenethey are in!
(12 May 2013)
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 partysong 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'sthe Indian guy at restaurant he's applying for, from 40 year oldVirgin, who I guess is funny, because he says "fuck" with a Jamaicanaccent.Stopped watching this crap after 30 minutes. This is why Hollywoodsucks. There are too many white, Jewish guys who have their yarmulkesso far up their privileged Lilly asses, they don't know what the worldis really like.
MYeah_Kendrick (08 May 2013)
I've been meaning to write this for a month, and finally found thetime.Jason Segel is on a hot streak, coming off of hilarious movies likeForgetting Sarah Marshall and The Muppets. The Five Year Engagement isyet another funny and sweet addition to his writing credits. Thechemistry he shares on-screen with co-star Emily Blunt (terrific, asalways) is far too charming to resist. Again, the film's cast andwriting are hilarious. I got an early laugh from Jacki Weaver, usingactor Tom Hanks as a hysterical allegory for marriage. There's stilltoo much going on, though. The plot does get out of hand, and it feelsoverlong, but it makes for one touching and enjoyable rom-com.**** / *****
Andrew Pelechaty (08 May 2013)
It seems that Jason Segel can do no wrong. Not only does he star in thelong-running sitcom 'How I Met Your Mother' (having just finished itsseventh season), he also lovingly Â and successfully Â revived TheMuppets earlier this year. While Segel may be physically imposing, hisgoofy, dorky, nice guy persona makes him relatable, a naturalreplacement for Judd Apatow stablemate Seth Rogen.Now Segel has tried his hand at the oft-derided rom-com genre with 'TheFive-Year Engagement' partnering the beautiful Emily Blunt (who is alsoa recovering stutterer).Segel and Blunt play Tom and Violet, a loving San Francisco-basedcouple preparing to get married after a year together. They have todeal with moving to Michigan for Violet's new job and Tom's bubblingresentment at being overshadowed after leaving a secure job as a chef(having to settle for working at a sandwich shop), the delay of theirwedding and the growing friendship between Violet and her handsome bossWinton (Rhys Ifans), situations that are a lot more relatable than yourpain-by- numbers rom-com. While the film follows a relativelypredictable path, it's not as nauseatingly obvious as some otherrom-coms. With Apatow as producer, this film has all the hallmarks ofhis best work, with its mix of crude, sometimes gross out humour andsweetness. The chemistry between Segel and Blunt is magnificent and youhave little trouble believing their relationship. While Segel's appealhas previously been covered, Blunt is absolutely stunning while stillappearing relatable to the audience with her engaging smile. The only negative is the conclusion, which feels a little rushed toaccommodate the "happily ever after" ending of every other romanticcomedy.Even if you're not a fan of rom-coms, 'Engagement' is well worthwatching. Segel and Blunt work wonderfully well as the lead couple andwhile it's fairly long at two hours, it doesn't have too many flatspots and thankfully avoids the sickening clichÃ©s of most rom-com's.
collipal-1 (07 May 2013)
The Five-Year Engagement is a romantic comedy which had the goodintentions of not meekly following the clichÃ©s of the genre, and ofbasing its humor on the interaction and nature of the characters,instead of searching for trite slapstick or scatological jokes. Thisfilm aspired to a realistic and sincere tone in order to examine somereal couple problems...however, its main problems are that it's longerthan it should, and that it should have provoked more laughs in orderto satisfy as a comedy. Nevertheless, I have to admit that it kept memoderately interested because of the solid performances and some validreflections about contemporary relationships.The main pro of The Five-Year Engagement is the cast, which makes theTWO HOURS the movie takes in order to tell a story which frequentlytends to wander on tiring and not very interesting sub-plots morebearable. During those digressions, Mindy Kaling, Brian Posehn, ChrisPratt and Chris Parnell come and go without too much purpose, but theytake the maximum advantage of their dialogues and superficialcharacters. In the leading roles, Jason Segel and Emily Blunt arecredible and have a good chemistry with each other.What works the least in The Five-Year Engagement are the psychologicalanalogies which arise as a consequence of Blunt's character's job. The"social experiments" she makes at college have obvious parallels to herromantic engagement and the long wait of her wedding, and I supposethey help in order to reinforce the film's message...but, let's acceptit, the message isn't exactly deep, so I don't think that so many turnswere necessary in order to express it. Instead of that, I would havepreferred a more concise and disciplined screenplay, with lessdistractions and tangents, even if that would have sacrificed apercentage of the humor, because the diffuse narrative focus is kindafrustrating, and demerits the pros from this film. Nevertheless, Ithink I can give The Five-Year Engagement a slight recommendationbecause of the good performances and some interesting aspects from thescreenplay.
Nick-leonardi (07 May 2013)
From the minds of Forgetting Sarah Marshall. A chef and his girl getengaged (Jason Segel and Emily Blunt), but a series of events makesthem postpone the marriage: one of these events includes their transferto Michigan, because the girl got accepted at the University, while thechef sacrifices his job to stay with her. The movie, although roughlymore than two hours, feels endless. Minor characters who promise greatlaughter disappear throughout the film. Characters who don't promiselaughter are the ones you see more on screen. Although Segel and Bluntseem to work quite well with one another, their surroundings are not assuccessful or memorable.
Hellmant (30 April 2013)
'THE FIVE-YEAR ENGAGEMENT': Three and a Half Stars (Out of Five)Nicholas Stoller and Jason Segel (the same team that brought us'FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL' and 'THE MUPPETS') reteam to bring us thisromantic-comedy drama about a couple who's engagement is stretched fiveyears, which takes it's toll on their relationship. Segel co-stars inthe film with Emily Blunt and also co-wrote it with Stoller. Stollerdirected the film as well and produced it with Judd Apatow. The filmalso stars Chris Pratt, Alsion Brie and Rhys Ifans. The movie has a lotof great moments but it also has many poor ones as well. A nicer editreally could have fine-tuned the film.Segel plays Tom Solomon and Blunt plays Violet Barnes. A year afterthey started dating Tom proposes to Violet. She says yes and it wouldappear they're set to live happily ever after (as it would also appearthat they're a match made in Heaven). Tom is a talented up and comingsous chef and Violet is studying social psychology and dreams of goingto school at (the near by) UC Berkeley. When that school rejects herand the University of Michigan offers her a postdoctoral assignmentinstead Tom agrees to drop everything and move to Michigan with her, asthey delay their wedding. Tom becomes miserable in Michigan as he can'tfind a good cooking job and their wedding continues to be put off.These problems seriously cause strains in their relationship and itshows.The acting is all more than decent, the directing is fitting and fullof somewhat magical touches and the script is smart and clever at timesbut the movie becomes bogged down in unnecessary and unfunny comedicfiller. The film is way too long at 2 hours and 4 minutes and with 30minutes cut out I could easily have given it another half a star.There's several scenes that seem like they belonged on the cutting roomfloor but the editor just didn't know what he was doing! Like themovie's premise what seems like the perfect magical idea becomes ruinedwhen it's stretched out too long!Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhcS7Q-CkYE
ram eshwar (30 April 2013)
Apart from the charming Emily Blunt and goofy Jason Siegel, this moviefalls apart from the word go. Wait I almost forgot, Alison Brie puts afantastic little show right in the beginning and the movie takesforever to finish from there.Violet (Emily Blunt) and Tom (Jason Siegel) just got engaged and due toturn of events their marriage never gets going for five long years. Themovie investigates whether fate or themselves that is the root causefor this delay never minding the audience waiting for the credits toroll.It is interesting to notice that the lead actors have been playingexactly same roles for sometime though we love watching them do thatevery single time. Not this time though, it got very exhausting. JuddApatow has to bring his 'R' game back that got him all the successearly on or I am soon losing interest in his stuff.There is nothing memorable from this movie except for how long it tookto finish
DarkVulcan29 (27 April 2013)
A couple(Jason Segal and Emily Blunt) who are very much in love, theymet a year ago at a costume party, have been an couple ever since, getengaged, plan to have a perfect wedding. But then the not so fairy talepart about being in love begins to set in, when there careers andfamily crisis come in the picture, and will they ever make it to thealter? I liked this film, I would not want to sit through it again, I likedthe way it shows that love is not like a fairy tale romance. JasonSegal and Emily Blunt are believable as the couple, I really believedthat they where in love, they just had that magic. Chris Pratt wasfunny at times, but other parts he got on my nerves and I just wantedto punch his lights out. An enjoyable bittersweet film, but once wasenough for me.
shanto13 (26 April 2013)
I don't know who made this movie and don't want to know his/her namebecause knowing his/her name will prevent me from watching goodmovie(s) (if he/she had made one!!) of him/her.In this movie a couple named Tom(Jason Segel) & Violet(Emily Blunt) isformally engaged to each other and they will get married soon. Buttheir engagement extends due to Violet has got a chance in a graduateschool. They decide not to get married until Violet's study finish. soTom moved with Violet to the place where violet has to study turningdown a job as chef at a restaurant.In university where violet gets a charming teacher and fell for himwhile tom was suffering to get a new job. Teacher also responded toViolet weakness and responded with some hypocrisy such as giving Violetextra marks, agreed to Violet's every proposal about their thesisignoring better proposal. As Violet doing good!! in the study theywanted Violet to Stay for more study which made Tom frustrated. As aresult they had a fight and decided to stay apart from each other.Violet marry that teacher and Tom started to live alone having a softspot for Violet. After few years Violet understand that she was noworthy of those favors she used to get from her husband(former teacher).Her husband did those only to get Violet. Then violet leave herhusband and made a reconciliation with Tom and their married was amatter of time.Now, what is the point of this movie ? Doesn't it says that Girls arenot worthy of Academic success ? Yes it says so. It also stated thatWomen use their Beauty as weapon of achievement.It also shows that Guys are looser. After being engaged to a girl hecan wait for her to marry a another looser and then they will have somefight then divorce. Then waiting guy get back her Girl !!!!!! I feelgreat sorry for the writer if he had wrote this story from his ownlife.DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME Watching this movie.
ShelbyTMItchell (26 April 2013)
It is not the best romantic movie but still cute. Due to the presenceof Jason Segal and Emily Blunt.Segal's Tom is a sous chef who dreams of running his own restaurant andViolet is Emily Blunt who wants to advance her education. As they meetand get engaged after one year of meeting one another. Bad news to Tombut good news to Violet, she gets the chance to advance her career atan university.But to do so, they will have to move from their home in San Franciscoto MI. As her career gets cooking and thriving, the move to Michiganreally sours Tom. As he can't find a job and is really not happy.Though he tries to not say anything, it really gets the worse of him.AS Violet gets chummy with her boss and mentor, played by scene stealerRhys Ifans. Who flirts with her that brings also problems to her andTom.Will they put aside their differences and move back to SF? Or will thelong engagement postponing their marriage, doom them? Not the bestromantic movie I have seen but still really cute though! The chemistryof Segal and Blunt kind of really saved it! Bickering one minute thanbeing loving the next.
Catherz_siobhan-419-124390 (26 April 2013)
I only went to see this film because it was on at a convenient time,but boy do I wish I never bothered. It was...dreadful. It calls itselfa comedy? In a reasonable sized screening I didn't hear one personactually laugh, the odd titter - that was it. What resounded was theawkwardness everyone felt watching this 'comedy' just fail in everyway. We were all sat there in horror as joke after joke fell flat onits face. Mind you, so unbelievably bad as it was, it was spell-bindingin its awkwardness. I think Emily Blunt generally is a great actress,but she does not have comic timing. You'd think Jason Segel couldn't gowrong, but even he couldn't pull off the "jokes" that this film wasrammed with. I would literally rather pull my own fingernails off thanhave to watch this painfully misguided comedy again. Who on earth wrotethat script? Give it up before you butcher any more actors'reputations.
china_daddy35 (25 April 2013)
I'm glad I rented the movie before I read the reviews. I have to admit,when I got home with it and then read the reviews on this site, Ididn't know if I wanted to waste my time. Really glad I ignored the badones. Not only is this a really funny movie, but a good movie as well.It is Rated R for a reason, but it's not over the top, in your face,the whole movie like some I have seen recently. This is a very quirkycomedy with some dark humor. If you are a fan of that, you will likethis movie. I read a lot of reviews about the length of the movie. Ihad no problem with it being 2 hours long. It had a good flow, but Iguess some viewers wanted a laugh a second. This comedy didn't feellike it needed to do that. There were a lot of "haha" moments, and thena few where I thought I might need medical attention because Iliterally stopped breathing. Both me and my wife thought it was wellworth our time.
Jackson Booth-Millard (24 April 2013)
Rom-coms in the last few years have always been something I've been abit sceptical about, I have not seen that many at the cinema, but whenthey come to DVD I am always up for trying something that may be cheesyor has some good people in it, and this is one of those, from directorNicholas Stoller (Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Get Him to the Greek).Basically Tom Solomon (Jason Segel) and Violet Barnes (Emily Blunt)have been together for one year and are celebrating, and he has theplan to propose with a ring to her as the head for a New Year's Eveparty, and with the view of the San Francisco Bay Bridge it is theperfect place to pop the question, but they have an argument due totheir lateness, so he blurts out what he wanted to say, to which she isoverjoyed and accepts. Now engaged they seem destined to live happilyever after, but with him working in Birch as a sous chef possibly upfor a promotion, and her working in social psychology at UC Berkeley itgets difficult for them to stay together for very long, but they aresure that a wedding will happen very soon and these concerns will fadeaway. Of course nothing in a wedding is straight forward, finding theperfect venue for the ceremony is stressful, and worse is when Violetis beckoned to get to a good place in the University of Michigan, andswallowing his pride and not taking her dream for her Tom tells her gofor it, and that he can go to Michigan to do cooking for two years, thewedding can be postponed. Violet is in Ann Arbor making friends withfellow student graduates Doug (Kevin Hart), Vaneetha (Mindy Kaling) andMing (Randall Park) and enjoying the company of Winton Childs (RhysIfans) the faculty adviser, and Tom is working at Zingerman's Deliwhich is far from the fine dining he is used to, but he gains aninterest in hunting with faculty spouse Bill (Chris Parnell) and bondswith co-worker Tarquin (Brian Posehn). Tom misses out on his promotionback in San Francisco when Alex Eilhauer (Chris Pratt) is promoted, andhe has also married Suzie (Alison Brie), Violet's quirky sister, theyhave kids, but Tom and Violet still haven't set a date to get married,everything is working out for everyone else but them. With the timepassing, their lives going different directions and having argumentsabout what they really want, they come to a point of thinking thatmaybe they are not meant to be together or get married, so they breakup and try to move on with other people. Of course eventually they bothrealise that the five years they have been engaged cannot break themapart or undo their feelings of love, so Violet gets Tom to meet her ina particular location, she has arranged for the things needed for awedding to be right there to quickly rush through, such as suits anddresses, religious person to conduct the ceremony, cake and all therest, and they finally get married and can live happily ever after.Also starring David Paymer as Pete Solomon and Jacki Weaver as SylviaDickerson-Barnes. Segel who also co-writes for the film does do alrightas the man trying to keep the woman happy, and Blunt is nice as thewoman thinking about her career but wishing for happiness, togetherthey are a reasonably good duo, the story is full of the predictablebits and is cheesy most of the time, as I expected, but in a way it isa good way to make jokes about couples who don't get married fastenough, it does happen, and there were some funny enough moments, a notbad romantic comedy. Worth watching!
Drewboy-2 (22 April 2013)
If I could rate this a zero, I would. Meanwhile I'll say this: if youare a young parent with kids who can't get a sitter, don't even THINKof bringing young children into this film! This is considered aromantic COMEDY? Ridiculous! It's a raunchy comedy, but any respect forthe sanctity of marriage is completely thrown by the wayside here.Scenes showing male depression, a professor hitting on a student,people of Asian descent (as well as elderly parents) using the "f" wordon each other, black racial stereotypes, the state of Michiganportrayed the worst it's ever been, frostbite injury seen as humorous(it is not), someone getting shot with an arrow, children watchingtheir mother and aunt cursing right in front of them while imitatingchildhood TV characters, a woman demeaning a man's sexuality, all ofthis is just totally unfunny. I'm only 52 but as I watched this I feltvery sad that the audience in my theater just laughed at everydysfunctional, pathetic joke. Is this what the idea of marriage hasfallen to amongst people in their 20s and 30s? I also found myselfwondering how long it would be until this excuse for a movie ended,finally walking out - couldn't take any more. Has our society fallenthis far? I thank God that I am naive to this kind of trash! I willnever watch another movie starring Jason Segal, and that includes "HowI Met Your Mother" as well.
tavm (21 April 2013)
Just watched this Judd Apatow-produced comedy with my movietheatre-working friend. It had plenty of laughs as well as moredramatic scenes that provided just the right mix. Jason Segel, as Tom,and Emily Blunt, as Violet, make an appealing couple who meet at acostumed New Year's Eve party before they get engaged. Tom has a bestfriend played by Chris Pratt and Violet has a sister played by AlisonBrie. There are many complications involving job offers and locations.But there are also many good laughs involving not just those I'vementioned but also Chris Parnell, Brian Posehn, Molly Shannon, MindyKaling, and Rhys Ifans as a professor associate of Violet's. I'll juststop there and just say that The Five-Year Engagement is well worth alook.
FilmPulse (18 April 2013)
There are risks when romantic comedy is injected with "truth." Toolittle, and it feels like a desperate attempt to give the filmcredibility. Too much and it starts to feel uncomfortable as the comedyis buried in what appear to be a string of life lessons. The Five-YearEngagement tries to find a balance between comedy and truth and after abit over two hours, almost succeeds.That's not to say the film is bad. It's far from it, especiallycompared to what usually passes for a romantic comedy these days. Itsleads (Emily Blunt and Jason Segel) have a surprising, easy chemistryand director Nicholas Stoller (who co-wrote with Segel) uses thetalented supporting cast to add new perspective and layers to what is apretty straightforward story.Violet (Blunt) is a post-doctorate student. Tom (Segel) is a risingstar of a chef in San Francisco. They get engaged on their firstanniversary and while most romantic comedies would end here, TheFive-Year Engagement does something that romantic comedies fail to do -showing what happens after the "happy ending." In doing so, we get tosee every crack, seam and bump in their relationship, from Tom'sresentment at leaving his dream job behind to follow Violet after shereceives a fellowship at the University of Michigan, to Violet'sincreasing frustration at how Tom changes during his relocation.It's a credit to Segel and Stoller that the situations that arise do soorganically and don't feel forced in for shock value, and when thingsstart to deteroriate, we not only see it coming, we solemnly nodbecause it is inevitable.The film has issues, though, and they almost capsize the film. The mostglaring one is the running time. The film clocks in at a bit over twohours, and you feel every grueling minute of it. The pacing and editingare a near disaster and at times, watching feels more like a chore thana good time. This is partially because the film, while billed as aromantic comedy, is only funny in spurts. The serious 'truths' of beingin a relationship take center stage, which is in itself not a badthing, but in a comedy, it really drags the film down.The ending is typical rom-com schmaltz, though, as if the filmmakerssnapped 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, butcould have been a lot more had they been able to strike the delicatebalance they were trying for.Daniel FilmPulse.net
bob the moo (18 April 2013)
I don't know if you've ever been to a party and met a girl who hasdrunk too much and cannot handle it; not just any girl though, but onethat this causes to be erratic Â wildly happy one minute, near tearsthe next, hugging everyone for a while but then randomly wailing aboutbeing lonely and depressed. If you have then you may humour her for awhile but eventually you'll start to keep your distance and make yourexcuses because, although here and there she might be fun or engaging,you never know what is coming and whether it will be good or bad. Thisfilm is that girl.The trailers suggest a romantic comedy; well, not just the trailers,but the title, the poster, the plot, the cast and indeed the veryobvious narrative arch we are about to follow. The plot is too obviousto spend too much time on here Â I already spent over two hours on itwhile watching it, but the title tells you all you need to know and thegenre tells you how it will all end. So in theory we should be onrather obvious ground here but in reality the film is all over theplace in terms of tone and content. In a way it should be praised fortrying to make it more than just a genre film, but this praise wouldonly come if it had pulled it off Â but it doesn't, instead it is onebewildering car crash of a film. Characters are excessively comic inthe way a smart comedy would have them, but then at the same time needus to take them seriously so that when the relationship startscrumbling we can go with the real dialogue. Impacting "real" moments ofjoint unhappiness spiral off into ridiculously random sex scenes withpeople being slapped in the face with food. Silly "teen boy" humour issat next to "proper" relationship drama. Basically it veers all overthe place and a lot of it seems weird simply because it sits so at oddswith the previous scene and following scene. It has its moments whereit is funny or engaging or on-point but these are never more thanmoments and it is not long before you find yourself backing off.The characters are very much the same individually and collectively.Some are drafted in to be off-the-wall funny in small moments but themain characters are also sporadically serious/real and comic andexaggerated; it is a mix that never works and few even get close. Bluntis one of the few to do it as she is fairly consistent across the film,but Segel simply doesn't convince and doesn't have a constant grip onhis character Â overplaying whatever scene he is in to the point wherehe often makes the problem worse. Pratt plays up the silly humour asindeed do smaller roles such as Kaling, Hart, Park, Weedman and others.Then you have Ifans delivering a silly excessive character who also hasto deliver within the serious side of the story to Â again he fails tomake it work on either side.Ultimately Five-Year Engagement may appeal to some but to me it wasjust all over the place. At times it was a Bridesmaids-esque comedy butthen at others it was a serious and rather morbid affair, a mix I haveno problem with when it works Â but it was far from ever working here.Blunt is the only one who just about manages to stay on this buckingbronco of a film, the rest of us (viewers included) are just thrownwildly around for very little reward.
Stream Theatre (14 April 2013)
What feels longer than a 5 year engagement? You guessed right: themovie about it.What starts as a light and funny movie, with so much promise, slowly(oh so slowly) drowns into staggering boredom, as the couple and thecreators try our patience.Actually, they did such a good work at it, that I was sure the movie isa 3 hours feature. Don't worry, it's only 2 and a bit.So what do we have? A quirky couple that don't really know if they wantto get married or not, but make an effort to actually go for it.On the way to the planned wedding, they are making any effort in orderto avoid it. These are not entertaining efforts. They are as dull as abroomstick.The question that all viewers are expected to ask is: will theyeventually get married? The answer is: after the first long 30 minutes,who would really care? And this is not to say that the actors didn't doa good job. They did. Most characters were very reliably acted, andthey fit the role. But even the best actor that will act as my boringneighbour from upstairs, will still be acting as a boring neighbourfrom upstairs.Do yourself a favour, and instead of watching this film, go and sayhello to your neighbours. They probably have much more interestingstories than this movie.Or even better: spend the time convincing your future spouse that youshould either not delay your wedding, or just go each in his ownseparate ways.
EephusPitch (14 April 2013)
It had been over two months since I had last ventured forth into amovie theater, and what the heck...an Apatovian movie, on my way homefrom work, starring Jason Segel and Emily Blunt, two eminentlyappealing actors: what's not to like? This was my thinking, such as itwas. This film, it turns out, is marginally better than ForgettingSarah Marshall, and not nearly as good as Get Him to the Greek. On theplus side, the actors all performed their parts well, and there were alot of good actors scattered throughout the ensemble, including BrianProsehn, Mimi Kennedy, David Paymer, Jim Piddock, Chris Parnell, JackiWeaver, and Rhys Ifans. Molly Shannon's cameo is the funniest thing Ican remember her ever doing. Jason Segel and Emily Blunt have decentchemistry, Segal and Chris Pratt have absolutely amazing chemistry.Some of the set pieces were pretty funny, especially in the first halfof the film. The negative? Pretty much everything else. There is a lotof air in this film. San Francisco is not even remotely a character inthe movie: a lesbian chef is about as San Francisco as it gets. Popquiz: if you're traveling from San Francisco to Ann Arbor, which Bridgedo you cross? Hint: it's not the Golden Gate. The City pretty muchcould have been any place else, and the same holds true, I'm sure, forAnn Arbor. The University of Minnesota Psychology Department shouldconsider legal action for being portrayed as sub-moronic, and lordknows professional chefs chop onions a whole lot better than anyone inthis film seemed capable of doing. Outside of the acting, the wholeproject just felt lazy and half-assed (I was going to type"half-baked", but in fairness I think that would have brought about amajor improvement in the quality of the finished product, or itcertainly wouldn't have caused any damage). I left the theater with thesense that this was the most mediocre movie I had ever watched. It wasaverage. Oh, and one thing more: I love, love, love, love crazy loveVan Morrison's songs, but really...nobody sings Van nearly as well asthe Man himself. Why the mediocre cover versions?
Review total: 20, showing from 1 to 20