The Last Five Years (2014) User Reviews

I wish the director was smarter!

[ree-bee103 · 5/10 · 13 August 2015]

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.

Sunset to Sunrise, and back again

[ferguson-6 · 5/10 · 12 February 2015]

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.

Great in theory, shakier in execution

[QuirkNFreckles · 6/10 · 27 June 2018]

I liked the idea of this movie, but seeing it played out didn't really have the emotional effect I was hoping for. I spent most of the movie trying to figure out what was going on. Maybe I am just slow, but it didn't occur to me that she was playing their relationship backwards and he was playing it forwards...maybe because with the exception of the first and (sort of) last scene, they were both in all of the scenes so I didn't quite catch the juxtaposition of the timelines as intended I guess. The order of the scenes didn't help and I couldn't find enough context clues particularly in the middle through the end to follow along with it. The movie wasn't comedic enough for me to laugh, and my confusion/the choppiness of the scenes sort of cut off any emotional reaction I was having...I would get teary and then be confused, then get irritated at one or both of the characters, and repeat the whole rollercoaster. I also don't know if it was intentional, but while I can see the relationship from both points of view and the flaws from each person, Anna Kendrick's character came off as more sympathetic than Jeremy Jordan's, so having her set up going backwards and having him setup to go forwards was not idea. I think I would have switched and had him go backwards and had her go forwards and maybe then I would have had the intended emotional reaction and maybe been a little more sympathetic toward his character...?

That being said, I liked the chemistry between Anna Kendrick and Jeremy Jordan! I think the casting was spot on!

Not everyone's cup of tea but a good gritty rom-com if you like musical theatre

[FilmFestAsh · 6/10 · 7 August 2019]

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.

This movie will appeal to viewers who already adore musicals but will not win over any new fans to the genre.

[wpedmonson · 4/10 · 23 February 2015]

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.

Off and On Pitch

[BlueFairyBlog · 6/10 · 3 June 2016]

Based on a 2001 Off-Broadway musical of the same name, "The Last Five Years" is, as its name implies, about a relationship between a couple who has their highs and lows. Weaving between the past and present this story follows the exploits of a novelist (Jordan) and would-be Broadway dancer (Kendrick) as they try to balance their professional exploits with their personal lives. Even at its happiest there's something offsetting and strange about their contented composure, and so most of this film is a depressing thrall (in a good way).

Kendrick is flawless, as has been demonstrated many times before ("Pitch Perfect," "Into the Woods," etc.). Her paramour is played by Jeremy Jordan, who has a background on Broadway as well. Both have the voices for this film, and the music is full of sarcastic fits of belting, but also an aching hurt, demonstrated well in early 00's musical theater. The plot sometimes makes it difficult for the songs to have an emotional impact because there's not always a clear build. The first scene is the end of their relationship, which has an amazing performance from Kendrick, and a great song, but it isn't exactly clear how we as the audience should feel. The ending doesn't really clear this up either, which is the start of everything. It seems like these two were always doomed.

While I liked most of this film, I didn't see much chemistry between the two leads. Most of the film they're apart either due to their work, the constraints of the novelist's fame, or the actress taking a job in Ohio. The only scene where they truly connect is "The Schmuel Song" which is a nonsensical, annoying footnote in the discography for this film. Though I found the depressing nature of the plot engrossing, the plot was uneven throughout and therefore this film is obviously flawed.

See the play instead

[SuzyCayenne · 5/10 · 15 February 2015]

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.

A Heavy, Heart-Wrenching, Heavenly Movie

[writerever365 · 9/10 · 16 February 2015]

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!

Beautiful to look at but weak plot

[Gordon-11 · 8 July 2015]

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.

Great as a musical, doesn't quite translate as a film

[ArchonCinemaReviews · 6/10 · 13 February 2015]

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!

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

[cosmo_tiger · 4/10 · 29 March 2015]

"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.

Interesting concept, highly recommended

[falcon83 · 8/10 · 13 February 2015]

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.

Kind of like 500 Days of Summer....but less wittier and with less charm.

[mr_bickle_the_pickle · 7/10 · 15 February 2015]

Anna Kendrick and Jeremy Jordan do the best they can with this film. It's not a bad film per se, but it jumps around a lot in the story which can make it hard to follow at times. I get why they did it. To show contrast between the high points in their relationship vs the low points. However, as I said it isn't always easy to follow, plus some of them don't make sense. For example in one song "Summer in Ohio" (at least I think that was the name) its revealed at the end that she's engaged. And the next scene/song, is the proposal. Why not have that song before Summer in Ohio then? Whats the purpose of having it backwards like that?

The other thing that majorly bugged me was RIGHT AFTER the wedding, there is a song about how Jamie (Jeremy Jordan) is tempted to cheat with all these women. And it just doesn't make sense to me. I would buy it more if we had seen him previously in the relationship as a guy with a wondering eye, OR if the song was sung later in the movie (like when their relationship was crumbling more). It just seems out of nowhere for his character, especially since in the previous scene they were married and he was singing a sweet song.

The ending also seemed abrupt to me. I have never seen the stage musical so I had no idea how its supposed to end, but I was kind of expecting more. Like maybe it would with Kathy (Anna Kendrick) finding the note Jamie left. Or it would end where it began. Coming Full circle. Instead it just ends with her walking up to the door. Like, I can't even be sure if that scene is in the present tense or if its just before she finds out he left. Like, it just ends with her walking up to her door and the title comes up on screen and it starts rolling credits. I sat there and thought "Wait, it's over?". No closure in my opinion.

That being said, Anna and Jeremy were the highlights of this film. They both acted well and both have great singing voices. I did like a number of the songs (the first one sticks out in my mind), and there were some funny moments. Like Kathy's audition song where she takes a jab at Russell Crowe for being in a musical. I thought it was an enjoyable movie for the most part. I think most of the issues are with the musical itself and not really the movie. I decided to give the movie a 7 because 6 just seemed TOO low, but it definitely doesn't deserve anything higher.

One last thing I thought I would mention, this film has a lot of singing. Yes, I know it's a musical. What I mean is that there isn't a ton of dialogue. The movie is like 98% singing. Now, that doesn't bother me, but I know there are people out there who don't care for every piece of dialogue sung.

Nope SPOILERS

[fdbjr · 3/10 · 21 February 2015]

The songs are at least OK, and musically quite rich - rich enough to bring me to the VOD. The leads are fine, but not (in my opinion) quite as good as some critics. Both voices sound a bit strident to me. But the movie is one of the more unpleasant experiences I've had with a musical.

Why? Because in my view, it's an absolutely abysmal premise for a romance. I noted 'spoiler' in my heading, but it really isn't much of one - every review will tell you of the narrative device in the plot, which is that the woman tells the tale in reverse, the man in conventional chronological order. Since the first song ("I'm Still Hurting", one of the better ones) is the break-up song, the audience knows from the get go that it didn't work out - and then has to endure 90 minutes of stops and starts, dashed hope and expectations, missed communications, etc. Who needs this?

Love stories are about hope, I blush to say - and when you leave none in the mix, you are setting up the story to fail, no matter how gifted the composer or performers. And that's what happens. It's just a depressing, downbeat experience, and no way to put it any differently.

Indecisive opinion.

[alannahjrpurslow · 6/10 · 8 October 2016]

I genuinely do not know what I think of this film. I am not sure whether to like it or not. I think that the songs are good. I have seen clips from the stage show and I do admire the Jason Robert Brown score however I just wasn't a fan of the particular outline/plot of the movie. I surprised myself. I usually like the starts with a song, ends with a song format, but this film didn't make me go 'wow'. I thought that the set and costume designs were good and lifted and dampened the mood when necessary, but I just feel that there is something about this movie which I have either haven't figured out yet or maybe just haven't watched enough times to fully appreciate.

Overall, I'm on the fence.

Anna Kendrick gives a knock out performance

[studioAT · 4/10 · 27 January 2017]

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.

Good, not great. Especially considering the talented vocalists.

[wesleyjnixon · 6/10 · 25 January 2016]

This is a musical... with Anna Kendrick... so I was thinking, "Awsome!" I love her voice, and she's a great actress, and a fun person, so I came into this with really high expectations. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't as good as I was hoping for. I also went into it completely blind. I didn't even read reviews before I watched it, so the timeline mix-up (which was really cool, but confusing at first) messed me up, a lot.

Cathy (Kendrick) is an up and coming actress. She falls in love with an up an coming, Jewish novelist named Jamie (Jordan). Her songs start at the end of their relationship and work backward. His start at the beginning and work forward. The whole thing ends in the middle when he proposes. The deconstructed timeline made the movie, once you figure it out.

They are two dreamy artists, so the love is fast and intense, but loses its substance when things get tough, and Jamie cheats on her, ending their marriage. It's a bit of a cliché, but probably happens more often than not. They are both so frustrated with their struggles in trying to make it in their perspective careers, that they lose touch with each other.

The music was good. Mr. Jordan is in the new Supergirl series, so it was fun to watch him sing. I was impressed. Mrs. Kendrick's voice was beautiful, as expected. However, none of the songs really stood out for me. I love musicals because singing is a talent I truly wish I had, but truly don't. I did theater all through high school, and my drama teacher would always make a spectacle of how horribly I sing. So, when I watch a show like this, with talent like this one had, I want something that will stick with me. Sadly, the repeating melody is mundanely present throughout. There weren't any ups and downs.

There is quite a bit of language throughout, and they even belt out the "F" word. I'm sad that Hollywood is doing that in every PG- 13 movie now.

Obnoxious and shallow

[LoraceDem · 1/10 · 20 February 2015]

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.

I'm Still Hurting

[solojere · 8/10 · 21 October 2021]

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!

Good for what it is, nearly impossible for new viewers.

[kurokotsu · 7/10 · 30 May 2015]

The Last Five Years is a sequel musical, coming after Songs for a New World; Which introduces these characters, and builds them up together. Songs for a New World, but, yet, was not given a movie adaptation. The main cast is comprised of two people, Anna Kendrick as Cathy Hiatt, and Jeremy Jordan as Jamie Wellerstein. There is no supporting cast to speak of, instead focused on these two characters. The Last Five Years is, as the title implies, about the last five years of something. In this case, it's a relationship.

Anna Kendrick is the newer of the two actors here. She understands the character, a despairing and unsuccessful New York actress. She plays a normal, struggling woman dealing with a, to put it lightly, eccentric boyfriend/husband. Here, her personality is lost at moments, content to merely follow along on the pomp and parade that is her husband's life. There is a bit of a disconnect between them, song-wise. In the moments she is involved in his songs, she doesn't interact much. Part of this can be blamed on the character itself, but part is also in the emotions conveyed with lines, as well as a lack of the emotional conviction that would be expected of one in her circumstance.

Her costar, Jeremy Jordan of Smash fame, does far better in his role. He takes cues from the original actor, it shows in his mannerisms and the odd voices he does. He can do the egomaniac writer well, he lives for such a big role and it's obvious. He flows between the varying emotional states and moods of the role, and it feels genuine. There's not much to be said about him, other than that it's a solid performance from a solid actor.

The staging and editing is, as to be expected, quite good. One thing I have to bring up is the almost surreal attitude of the movie. In the beginning, we have scenes such as a choreographed dance number on a New York street, and a seemingly endless black hallway of ex- girlfriends. Later, when they continue on the worse aspects of the relationship, all traces of that are gone. It becomes very standard, almost, and upsets the tone in a way that may not have been intentional. This, combined with the use of saturation to differentiate the scenes, with emerald green grass in one moment and a nearly grey apartment the next, causes a disconnect within the movie itself. It feels disjointed in multiple ways, due to all of the tonal and artistic shifts.

The original writer was involved in the creation, as was the initial female lead who kept the pace going from behind the scenes. The biggest issue is an understanding of pacing, given how the source material bounces around. The storytelling is meant to be opposed. The woman, Cathy, her story is started at the end of the relationship. It rewinds, every other songs, to the very beginning of their relationship over the course of the movie. The male lead, Jamie, his story starts at the beginning. With his relationship to her, and then following to the conclusion we already know from her story. The two don't share songs except for brief moments, usually. They share screen time, but nothing else. The last song, as he says goodbye and she meets him, is one of two times they both sing in the same song. The other time is right smack dab in the middle of the movie, where he proposes to her. As such, it is very difficult to get a feel for their chemistry. It causes issues with knowing where exactly you're at, relying on the musical narrative with no outside aid.

Overall, it's a solidly average movie. Not perfect, not horrid. The chemistry they share, for how hard it can be to measure, is the best thing holding it together, followed by Jeremy Jordan's portrayal of his character. I can recommend seeing it, if only to experience the story and the different attitudes present throughout. You can laugh and cry and feel the movie tug at your heartstrings when it wants to, which is the most you can ask for from any musical.

It lasts only for five minutes!

[Reno-Rangan · 3/10 · 24 July 2016]

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

A story in song

[cekadah · 10/10 · 20 February 2015]

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!

Anna Kendrick makes it worth it, in all honesty.

[rprince-832-6294 · 7/10 · 4 March 2015]

-The Last Five Years (2015) movie review: -The Last Five Years is a rom-com musical, based on the musical of the same name, about a struggling actress and her boyfriend/husband, a successful novelist, who have split up, and how they got to that point over the five years they were together. If only I had known what it was about before I watched it. (sigh) -So it had some ups and downs, but I did find myself enjoying the film. Anyway, on to the review! -The story was interested and compelling, but the editing in different time-frames was somewhat confusing without clarification.

-The pace was good, but one thing you should know first: The entire film was singing. Like Les Mis, but half as long. And modern. And not as good. But just as depressing. (sigh) -The acting was good. It stars Anna Kendrick, otherwise known as the reason I watched it, and Jeremy Jordan, otherwise known as the reasons I did not like the story too much. They both did a good job and can sing.

-The characters are not all that likable. You are supposed to get behind them and hope it all works out, but in the end they are both really selfish people arguing in song.

-The music is probably the most important thing I have to judge. I did enjoy the music. It was consistent, compelling, and elicited emotion. There was one song that went on for WAY too long, but then Anna Kendrick made fun of the length, so I forgave it.

-There are moments in the film that help it be a compelling, entertaining, and enjoyable film. However I feel like starting out with a spoiler of the end made the film just dwindle. The problem with that is that you cannot be hopeful and optimistic because you know what happens, however realistic that would probably be.

-Before it sounds like I am being mean, there were some really well made shots where many things happened as you would see on a stage montage, and I thought it was really neat.

-So despite the flaws of the editing and characters you cannot really grow attached to, The Last Five Years did have compelling scenes and a good deal of entertainment added with the music. I'll be honest, I would probably buy it in a $5 bin ONLY because I am a big fan musicals. Oh, and Anna Kendrick. If it were anyone else, Netflix. But yeah.

-The Last Five Years is rated PG-13 on the heavy side for some sexual content, no nudity, and some language, including one F-word. It always throws me off when there is language in a song. It's weird to me. Idk.

It's not bad and not good either but still worth to watch

[moselexi · 5/10 · 17 February 2024]

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.

Anna Kendrick continues to be great

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 3 July 2015]

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.