The Five-Year Engagement (2012) User Reviews (186)

A passable romantic comedy

[FilmPulse · 6/10 · 5 May 2012]

There are risks when romantic comedy is injected with "truth." Too little, and it feels like a desperate attempt to give the film credibility. Too much and it starts to feel uncomfortable as the comedy is buried in what appear to be a string of life lessons. The Five-Year Engagement tries to find a balance between comedy and truth and after a bit over two hours, almost succeeds.

That's not to say the film is bad. It's far from it, especially compared to what usually passes for a romantic comedy these days. Its leads (Emily Blunt and Jason Segel) have a surprising, easy chemistry and director Nicholas Stoller (who co-wrote with Segel) uses the talented supporting cast to add new perspective and layers to what is a pretty straightforward story.

Violet (Blunt) is a post-doctorate student. Tom (Segel) is a rising star of a chef in San Francisco. They get engaged on their first anniversary and while most romantic comedies would end here, The Five-Year Engagement does something that romantic comedies fail to do - showing what happens after the "happy ending." In doing so, we get to see every crack, seam and bump in their relationship, from Tom's resentment at leaving his dream job behind to follow Violet after she receives a fellowship at the University of Michigan, to Violet's increasing frustration at how Tom changes during his relocation.

It's a credit to Segel and Stoller that the situations that arise do so organically and don't feel forced in for shock value, and when things start to deteroriate, we not only see it coming, we solemnly nod because it is inevitable.

The film has issues, though, and they almost capsize the film. The most glaring one is the running time. The film clocks in at a bit over two hours, and you feel every grueling minute of it. The pacing and editing are a near disaster and at times, watching feels more like a chore than a good time. This is partially because the film, while billed as a romantic comedy, is only funny in spurts. The serious 'truths' of being in a relationship take center stage, which is in itself not a bad thing, but in a comedy, it really drags the film down.

The ending is typical rom-com schmaltz, though, as if the filmmakers snapped out of their malaise, thought "hey, aren't we making a comedy?" and wisely ended the film on an acceptably quirky note.

In the end, The Five-Year Engagement is serviceable entertainment, but could have been a lot more had they been able to strike the delicate balance they were trying for.

Daniel FilmPulse.net

There are no safe spaces in love

[korinez · 7/10 · 19 March 2018]

I do not understand why there are so many bad reviews. The film is very good.

I was intrigued by Emily Blunt's presence in the film so I downloaded it and was very surprised because it turned out to be so much better than I expected. There is one noteable thing about it - almost all the situations that are supposed to make you laugh are at least 1/3 unfunny as they are. This is a very believable quality about the film - it makes you look at life from a distance and understand that all those stupid actions and decisions that people make are just funny as hell. And with a little love you can even come to a happy-end (I don't think it's a spoiler, this is obviously not Macbeth, you knew a happy end was there). But this is what makes this film an actual challenge for some people. It is NOT PLEASANT. It does not put you into a dreamy or giggly state. It is actually quite raw, sarcastic and real. I do believe that we live in times when real things are considered unnerving and even evil. Some people would very much rather have safe spaces built in every corner of the city and not deal with reality. Well, in true love there are no safe spaces. True love makes you stay with a person through all the ugly things and through the funny things and through the good things, obviously.

Acting is on the spot. Everyone knows that Emily Blunt is one of the most talented actresses. Jason Segel is handsome and compelling, support cast entertain you in every possible way. The dialogues are great. Everything sounds very natural.

7 our of 10 - because 10 is Fellini and Visconti. One of the best modern chick flicks I've ever seen.

I WANT TO BE ALONE... WITH YOU HERE

[nogodnomasters · 7/10 · 5 December 2018]

This is an interesting hit and miss romantic comedy aka "chick flick." Tom (Jason Segel) is a chef in San Francisco who is engaged to Violet (Emily Blunt) a Brit. They meet at a costume New Year Eves party and don't worry if you miss it, they replay it (definite chick flick giveaway).

In a role reversal, he gives up his career so she can do her doctorate studies at the University of Michigan for a couple of years. They put off getting married while Michigan turns Tom into Grizzly Adams. Meanwhile Susan (Alison Brie) who is Violet's sister gets married to the somewhat crude Alex (Chris Pratt) a friend and co-worker of Tom.

The humor moves from clever to awkward to bad. There is a doughnut metaphor that starts in the middle of the film, that has moments of cleverness. The extreme overreaction of the main characters due to minor difficulties is perhaps the downfall of the film. While the film needed to create conflict, it did so in an inane manner that was neither funny nor realistic. Emily Blunt gives us a good performance.

Parental Guide: F-bomb, sex, male rear nudity (Jason Segel...another chick flick giveaway)

Feels like five-year long!

[Dunkaccino · 6/10 · 19 February 2021]

The five-year Engagement, starring Emily Blunt and Jason Segel, is a rom-com focusing on the engagement of the two main characters they play. Many happened during the five year period.

The film may get you interested in the first 30 minutes, cause it does have some funny scenes and the regonizable faces of Kevin Hart and Mindy Kaling. As it goes on, you will lose interest in the film just like I did. Many subplots are going on and not every one can keep you interested.

It started to feel long and you will think "Please hurry up and just get married".

So it is basically like a long typical rom-com. Nothing special.

Grade: B-

Delightful Romantic Comedy

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 15 October 2016]

In Los Angeles, the chef Tom Solomon (Jason Segel) meets the psychologist Violet Barnes (Emily Blunt) in a New Year's Eve party and they immediately fall in love with each other. One year later, Tom proposes Violet to get married and they schedule their wedding date. However, the application of Violet to the University of Michigan to a master's degree is accepted and Tom declines to the offer of his boss Chef Sally (Lauren Weedman) to be the chef of a famous restaurant that belongs to her. His best friend and assistant Alex Eilhauer (Chris Pratt), who is married with Violet's sister Suzie Barnes-Eilhauer (Alison Brie), accepts the position. They postpone the wedding and Tom and Violet move to Berkley for two years. While Violet befriends her Professor Winton Childs (Rhys Ifans) and colleagues, Tom has difficulties to find a job and work is a restaurants specialized in sandwiches. Two years later, when Tom is ready to return to Los Angeles, Violet is invited to be assistant professor in Michigan. What will happen to the couple?

"The Five-Year Engagement" is a delightful romantic comedy with the lovely Emily Blunt in the lead role. The plot combines romance, drama, comedy and black humor in right doses and the only boring moment is when Chris Pratt sings – probably he is a better chef than singer. Jason Segel shows great chemistry with Emily Blunt and is easy to understand the relationship problems due to professional realization. The beauty of Dakota Johnson is amazing but her shallow relationship of her character with Tom is not well explored. One of the best moments is when Tom has lunch with his parents. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Cinco Anos de Noivado" ("Five-Year Engagement")

Engaging

[kosmasp · 7/10 · 7 September 2012]

The movie was not as funny as I thought it would be (especially after watching the trailer, which I couldn't avoid doing). But it still was more than alright. I do like Jason Segel and Emily Blunt is not only gorgeous but also very funny. She was also the reason Adjustment Bureau worked. You could see why Matt Damon ... But lets not digress. Although again you can see why Jason Segel (the character he's playing) would fall for Emily Blunts character.

Some obstacles in the movie seem to not make a lot of sense. But then again, life does not make a lot of sense either most of the time. So it does depend on your suspend of disbelief. But if you can do that, you might enjoy a sweet little romantic comedy, that does work, which can't be said about most of the romantic movies being released in recent history.

Five-Years... Could Have Been Shorter Though

[josh_youngbwfc · 7/10 · 2 July 2012]

The Five-Year Engagement sees Jason Segel continuing to try and cement his place as one of Hollywood's greatest comedy actors following The Muppets and Jeff Who Lives At Home with the help of writing partner Nicholas Stoller. Segel's latest offering comes in the form of a romantic comedy when exactly a year after meeting Tom (Segel) proposes to his girlfriend Violet (Emily Blunt) but unexpected events keep on getting in their way as they attempt to tie the knot with one another.

With most films of this genre you get the same thing over and over again: boy meets girl, boy and girl fall in love, boy and girl split up, boy and girl get back together and live happily ever after. In The Five-Year Engagement what you get is an in depth look at the ins and outs of a stable relationship as it journeys through the ups and downs of life. I think that this is a great idea and shows that relationships don't always run smoothly as plenty of other films would have you believe. I also believe that The Five-Year Engagement separates itself from other comedies aimed at an adult audience by being cleverer and, although we do get to see Jason Segel's rear end on more than one occasion, a lot of the comedy is very well written and obviously well put together.

There is clear chemistry between the two leads of the film, Jason Segel and Emily Blunt which is obviously helped by their off screen friendship and the fact that the two of them have worked together previously. Segel puts in a great performance but I don't think that we ever get to see the best of him like we have seen in The Muppets and television sitcom How I Met Your Mother. He is a very fine comedic actor though and brings out some good laughs here; I'm not a fan of Emily Blunt too much and at times her comedy efforts seemed a little forced. Also, her accent seems overly British even though it's authentic, how weird is that? The Five-Year Engagement starts off very well with some hilarious moments and really sets you up for what should be a laugh a minute film from start to finish. A lot of this is the emphasis put on the characters of Tom's colleague and friend Alex (Chris Pratt) and Violet's sister Suzie (Alison Brie). Whilst their relationship offers very little to the film as a whole their individual contribution to scenes are very well delivered. Chris Pratt is wonderfully funny in almost every scene in which he features and a particular scene featuring Pratt's Alex delivering a presentation of Tom's former girlfriends is my favourite part of the film and a brilliantly written and acted scene. Unfortunately, their characters seem to fizzle out and so does the film itself.

There is a reason that most romantic comedies are only an hour and a half long; the plot cannot sustain a two hour movie without lagging. The Five-Year Engagement does try and stretch over two hours and you would think that with five years of a relationship to tell then it would easily manage this without getting too boring. You would be wrong. It gets to a point where you think it could be coming to an end only to realise there is still about half an hour left and after a while the laughs become a sparse item. Don't get me wrong, The Five-Year Engagement at times is hilarious and it is definitely a great romantic comedy with real stock in the lead characters but it tails off towards the end. It is still, though, definitely worth watching!

Utterly disappointing

[geniebean4 · 4/10 · 12 April 2012]

Everyone involved in this movie is so much better than this. I'm kind of embarrassed for all of them. Did we need a whole movie about how awful it is to be engaged to a gorgeous, funny, intelligent woman that you make sacrifices for? I just don't understand the point of it. The leads were cute enough together, but it didn't feel like a real relationship. The peaks and troughs were all so contrived and predictable. And all the "comedy" hinged on genitals, dead grandparents, Andy from Parks & Rec except inexplicably successful, and an Asian man with a thick accent. Really? It's 2012, guys. That stuff is stale.

Allison Brie was fantastic, though.

A funny 90-minute movie that was 2 hours long

[NRGDude · 8 May 2012]

While the movie started strong and quickly reached the first set of wedding delays, once the characters moved to Michigan, things bogged down quickly. Without spoiling the movie, the antics in the Wolverine State were more like bad SNL skits than part of this movie.

The characters, both primary and secondary, were very likable and were also very well developed. Some of the fringe characters (I talking to you, Dakota!) tended to be overly done and one-note. They could have been scaled back to fit their place in the movie thus adding to rather than subtracting from the story. (Math in a movie review? Who would have guessed?) Tom's job hunt problems seemed to be oriented toward setting up jokes than based in reality. A man with his background would have landed a position in Ann Arbor in a New York minute. However, Violet's drama was much better written and more believable.

Once back in San Francisco, everything picked up again and you began rooting for the home team to finally make it to the goal line.

So go enjoy the beginning and end but be ready to take a 30-minute nap in the middle. Maybe the Director's Cut with actually cut out the boring parts. One can hope.

some hilarious moments

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 17 August 2013]

A year into their relationship, Tom Solomon (Jason Segel) proposes to Violet Barnes (Emily Blunt). She accepts but life choices lead to complications and delays in the wedding date.

Nicholas Stoller and Jason Segel team up once again to try and repeat Forgetting Sarah Marshall's success. There are some good laughs. Taken together, it adds up to a pretty funny movie. However the storyline can get quite depressing and challenging as their relationship faces serious obstacles. Those depressed moments can drag the movie down. That makes for a slightly uneven movie. With a two hours running time, maybe a four year engagement would be snappier.

Didn't work for me

[HotToastyRag · 3/10 · 28 April 2022]

Even though I usually like Emily Blunt and I usually like Jason Segel, I really didn't like The Five-Year Engagement. It felt like a funny "what if" premise Segel and Nicholas Stoller rattled off in the screenwriters' room that failed to get fleshed out properly. "What if a couple gets engaged and then the wedding keeps getting pushed off?" I loved their collaboration of The Muppets (and have watched my well worn DVD copy countless times), and the remake of Gulliver's Travels was very charming, but I just couldn't get behind this movie.

A combination of extremely silly gags, ad libs that go on too long, slapstick, and "college humor" (jokes that are funny to one's group of friends during a party but not as much the next morning) result in a rather long running time that beat the plot to death. How long can you stretch a delayed wedding, especially when the title gives away any suspense as to how long it will be delayed?

To each his own, so if you liked Forgetting Sarah Marshall (including the ridiculous vampire puppets) you'll probably like this one. I prefer to see Emily in more serious roles, like Into the Woods and Looper. But I'll still be willing to try anything she's in with an open mind.

Enjoyable, Funny, some Dark humor, some parts dragged

[chris-337-786107 · 8/10 · 6 April 2012]

Enjoyable funny movie that portrayed the modern day conflict of a couple with two careers. Who gives up what and why and how willing are they to accept the true full meaning of the compromise. Several good points are made and good analogies used.

Humor works for both guys and gals.

Without spoiling anything, the element used to mark time is somewhat dark.

Be familiar with the song 'Cu cu ru cu cu Palamo'. It is sung very well in Spanish early in the course of the movie with no translation but is tone setting for the movie. Used again in the credits.

At just over 2 hours, this movie seemed to drag at some points and several scenes could have been edited down a wee bit. Don't need to see something for 30 seconds or 2 minutes when the point is made and understood in considerably less time.

I don't see any academy nods for this one nor would I have expected any for this genre of movie but it was an enjoyable movie for an evening.

My wife and son were there and enjoyed it as well.

Better than I Thought

[HomeinIndiana · 7/10 · 4 December 2013]

I watched this movie, and at first found it rather dull. Then I realized that I was thinking about it with some pleasure. This movie gets many things right. The difficulties of a two-career couple ring true, particularly when one partner "trails" the other to a lesser job than he (in this case) could get on his own. I know a chef, and the difference between running a trendy restaurant and making sandwiches--no matter how revered the sandwich shop locally--is significant. Violet finds herself in a convincingly dead-end post-doc. The imposed misery of organizing a wedding these days makes one envy this couple's resolution to that problem. To be sure, there are a few problems. The film drags at the end. There is one scene (the "Choose your cookie" scene) that made me want to scream, though it was essential to the plot. In short, this is an enjoyable film, a little bit better than it was generally considered to be, and is worth watching.

Not really a comedy

[rogerdob · 1/10 · 9 May 2012]

This picture is being sold as a comedy...however it is more like a drama with some comedic elements...and those few comedic moments aren't really that funny. The movie examines with a cynical eye a relationship that the director wants to present as a real loving one. However, anyone in the audience can see that this relationship has problems. The female lead is an annoying selfish character while the male character is wimpy and feels sorry for himself.

The movie is extremely self indulgent...it was written by the director and by the star. I don't think they wanted to leave any scenes out. The movie meanders for over two hours. It could have easily been a 90 minute film.

Asian stereotypes galore

[drdurden70 · 2 February 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 party song 2. What's with the inexplicably mute father's Asian girlfriend? 3. Why does the Asian guy at Michigan have the phoniest accent? 4. There's the Indian guy at restaurant he's applying for, from 40 year old Virgin, who I guess is funny, because he says "fuck" with a Jamaican accent.

Stopped watching this crap after 30 minutes. This is why Hollywood sucks. There are too many white, Jewish guys who have their yarmulkes so far up their privileged Lilly asses, they don't know what the world is really like.

I Actually Really Liked This

[anga-50622 · 7/10 · 7 February 2021]

I remember watching chunks of this on TV years ago and always liked it. I watched the second two thirds of the movie (from when Chris Pratt gets married) today and it was great. The cast is great. A lot of actors who I normally find irritable (Alison Brie, Kevin Hart, Mindy Kayling) I actually enjoy in this movie. That's probably because their used very efficiently with their limited screen time. Great soundtrack too. I've had that one Glen Hansard song on my phone for years, and it's from the official soundtrack - so I'm always looking at the movie poster when it comes on. That's sorta my strongest connection to this movie. 7 stars

2hrs, really? Huh.

[mentiramivida6 · 7/10 · 21 June 2023]

Longer than it felt and for sure longer than it should have been. Although there were many funny actors there weren't many true jaja moments. For 2hrs all this made me do was chuckle a couple of times but really it was a bit boring... yet I didn't hate it. Kevin Hart needed a better skit or given rein to be his funny self. Brie and Pratt were their funny selves (love their version of such an iconic song:). They were the actual funny parts of the movie. Blunt and Jason were meh. Being the main actors they were definitely were miscast. Jason is a good actor when he has great supporting actors to let his comedy shine. Emily always show's potential to be funny but much like Jason requires supporting help. Overall it's a decent dry comedy.

Cringe Moments and instantly Likable Characters,

[lesleyharris30 · 7/10 · 20 August 2014]

The Five Year Engagement is a great movie with a very well developed storyline and a fantastic comedic cast.The movie is filled with loads of really funny scenes,but still manges to keep an interesting and complicated love story,you really care for these characters and want to keep following them on their journey,a lot of people say it is overlong but I think the two hours was necessary for this story.There was great chemistry between Jason Segel and Emily Blunt,but my favourite characters in this are the supporting ones,every scene with Chris Pratt was hilarious,also Alsion Brie,Mindy Kaling,Kevin Hart,Brian Posehn and Randall Park all had me in stitches with the weird and wacky characters they played.The Five Year Engagement is a great movie that I would recommend to anyone looking for a good romantic comedy.

A happy couple are all set to walk down the aisle together,but unexpected events keep delaying them.

Best Performance: Chris Pratt Worst Performance: Chris Parnell

Pretty good film, mostly very good cast.

[kenny-164 · 7/10 · 3 May 2017]

I will not address the narrative here in any fashion, my comments being limited to the cast and quality of the writing. On the latter the film was mostly good but at times seemed like it could do with a bit less. On the former I loved Alison Brie and Chris Pratt in supporting roles, and Emily Blunt was great, too. Other players were also very good for the most part. But... I felt Segal was a bit flat here, and that and the overall too long length led me to give an at times quite funny film only a 7.

Absolutely Terrible!

[krsgallant · 1/10 · 13 May 2012]

This is one of the all time worst films I have ever seen. I am surprised that theater goers aren't demanding their money back (it really was that bad). Shame on you Nicholas Stoller for your lack of direction -- the film was all over the place. I am amazed that Judd Apatow did not take his name of this one -- it's a real stinker! Great cast, beautiful locations -- no excuse. With all of the great scripts that can't get funding, what genius gave this poor attempt at comedy the green light??!!! No wonder the theater was empty! In addition to the bad directing, editing and writing, the film was almost two and a half hours! It was painful to sit through.

Fresh, Exciting, Funny

[aditi1490 · 7/10 · 20 April 2012]

Just finished watching the movie in an advanced screening, and I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. The entire movie had the audience in stitches, and for good reason — it's really, really funny. In a very overt way.

Jason Segel is cute, lovable and hilarious as Tom. He's a man who ends up in a small town even though he's clearly built for the city. His fiancé, Violet, on the other hand, is more than thrilled to enjoy post-doc life in Michigan. They're an unusual, quirky couple who go to parties dressed as Princess Diana and Super-Bunnie. It's hard not to feel bad for Tom when he ends up in the wrong place at the wrong time, jobless and poor. Working at a sandwich store barely competes with the Head Chef position he could have had, had he not moved to Ann Arbor with Violet.

Emily Blunt — you've been sent to us from heaven. The actress brings a breath of fresh air with every role she undertakes. She's funny, she's sarcastic, she's adorable. You'll come out loving both the characters with a passion. Because you get them. They're weird, just like normal people. They have their quirks, they don't talk enough, and they have serious issues that they treat in funny ways just to make them less relevant. I do that all the time!

The story is not groundbreaking. Mid-way through the movie, you can tell exactly what's going to happen next. But you keep watching because you know there's a ridiculous joke around the corner. Writer and director Nick Stroller clearly learned a thing or two from his mentor, Judd Apatow. This movie is fresh and funny, despite the stale storyline. And the two lead actors do it the utmost justice.

Drivel

[gsceldridge · 1/10 · 6 October 2012]

I switched this film off after thirty minutes, because in all that time I did not laugh or even smile and had started to feel a bit ill at the dangerously pathetic attempts at humour.

I like Jason Segel but Emily Blunt does nothing for me - she is just quite dull and irritating. However, even Jason Segel could not save this embarrassing train-wreck of a film.

Just don't bother. If you do you will very quickly regret it when you see an engagement party with some sad powerpoint presentation of Segel's exes, with an accompanying song. Yes, because that is both believable AND hilarious!I was on an eight-hour flight and I preferred to switch this off and stare out of the window. That should tell you everything.

Grossly underrated. A real gem.

[eyezik-33319 · 8/10 · 27 July 2017]

I went into this film with low expectations. Very rarely do I actually take the time to watch romantic comedies but this one had such an excellent cast that I decided to give it a try. So glad I did. This film is fantastic. It knows when to be smart and it knows when to be serious, and both of these things it pulls off perfectly.

Probably the thing that surprised me the most about this film was the fantastic chemistry between Jason Segal and Emily Blunt. I never would have guessed that they could work so well with each other! Chris Pratt and Alison Brie are also great together. In fact, the whole cast is great. It was very refreshing to see Kevin Hart in a smaller role in which it didn't feel like he was trying the steal the entire scene.

The only reason that I took two stars off my review is because I did feel at times that the pacing was a little bit off. Some of the scenes probably could have been tightened up a bit to make them that much more effective and there may have been a few short scenes that weren't really needed. This is my only real complaint about the film.

Overall, I highly recommend this movie. Though it is quite long for a comedy, it's also totally worth it. "The Five-Year Engagement" has a lot of charm to it and also has a very interesting metaphor tied into the plot. The film has a great story, a great cast, and should make for a great date night movie!

Has its moments

[cardsrock · 6/10 · 29 December 2020]

This film is fine for the most part. There are some occasional funny moments balanced out by some hard truths about relationships. The biggest issue with this film is the runtime. The middle third of this movie really drags and brings the momentum to a screeching halt. Segel and Blunt have good chemistry and the staggering amount of comedic talent in this movie help make it a watchable, if somewhat underachieving romantic comedy.

Depressing, oppressive, completely unfunny experience

[gregeichelberger · 2/10 · 25 April 2012]

I tried to make a list of movies which I laughed at less than Universal's newest release, "The Five-Year Engagement," and could only think of two: "Observe and Report" and "The Passion Of the Christ."

Films I found much funnier include, "The Love Guru," "Duece Bigalow: American Gigalo," "All About Steve" and "Platoon." That does not surprise, however, since this picture was directed by Nicholas Stoller (who has helmed two of the worst "comedies" of all-time, "Get Him To the Greek" and "Forgetting Sarah Marshall").

With a cast that features Jason Segel ("The Muppets," "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," "How I Met Your Mother" TV series, who also co-wrote with Stoller), Emily Blunt ("Salmon Fishing In the Yemen," "The Devil Wears Prada"), Chris Pratt ("Moneyball," "Parks and Recreation" TV series), Alison Brie ("Scream 4," "Mad Men" TV series) and David Paymer ("Quiz Show," an Academy Award nominee for "Mr. Saturday Night"), there is - sadly - not one funny moment or humorous situation.

And, at two-plus hours, this monstrosity drags like a bloated beached grey whale, with no pacing, direction or intriguing plot line to hold any interest whatsoever.

The story has sous chef, Tom Solomon (Segel), meeting Violet Barnes (Blunt) at a "super hero" costume party in San Francisco. He's a pink bunny and she's Princess Diana (for SOME reason). A year later, he proposes, but a series of contrived events take place to postpone the nuptials.

She then gets a job in the psychology department at the University of Michigan, so he gives up his job to travel to Ann Arbor with her. While there, she meets another group of depressing, humor-impaired colleagues, including Kevin Hart ("Fool's Gold" - notice the pattern here of these actors appearing in terrible comedies?), Mindy Kaling ("The Office" TV series) and Randall Park ("Larry Crowne").

Meanwhile, he struggles to find work, finally getting a job making sandwiches at a greasy spoon diner. As she rises in the eyes of her professor, the irritating Brit Winton Childs (Rhys Ifans, "Nanny McPhee Returns" *sigh*), Tom turns into Grizzly Adams, growing a ridiculous beard, making his own mead and killing his own food.

The film then lurches from "cerebreal" comedy to a romantic drama as the two fall out, have short flings with other people (Tom is smeared with potato salad and nearly raped by a co-worker) and separate.

Then just as quickly, the movies introduces some wild slapstick in which Violet gets shot with an arrow and slammed with a car door; while Tom wanders out on a freezing night, suffers frostbite and loses a toe (this is supposed to be laugh-inducing?!). Other "hilarious" moments in this enterprise are supposed to be the funerals of various grandparents who died waiting for this marriage to take place. Pardon my belly laughs.

While Violet moves in with Winton, Tom begins dating a younger woman who seems to be insatiable in bed. In fact, the soft-core porn scenes here are so monotonous (showing intercourse from ever possible angle while she screams, "Faster Tom, faster!") that the sex becomes unbelievably annoying and makes one wish for the passion and lucidity of a 1970s porno flick.

What will happen to the star-crossed lovers? If you're like me, you will not care one bit, since all they seem to do is bicker and have absolutely no chemistry, anyway. There also is not one likable or even redeeming character here.

Even Tom's best friend, Alex (Pratt), and Violet's sister, Suzi (Brie), who hook up after she is impregnated on a one-night stand, are so shallow and badly-written as to induce a malaise of immense proportion.

And Segel, who helped bring the Muppets back to the big screen (an effort I have praised), is the worst culprit of all, as his Tom is basically one of the biggest jerks in recent comedy history, yet despite his aggressive repulsiveness, Violet cries (several times during the proceedings), "I love you, so much, I love you so much."

Love is an emotion few will feel about "The Five-Year Engagement," which is about the length of time one will believe they have actually spent watching this claptrap.