The Five-Year Engagement

As in last year's "Bridesmaids," an authentic, dimensional human element animates the jokes and the characters with whom we spend a couple of highly satisfying hours.

Perhaps the best thing about The Five-Year Engagement is that it signals a touch of maturity creeping into the House of Apatow.

For the most part, The Five-Year Engagement has charm and emotion.

Nicholas Stoller and Jason Segel's latest collaboration offers a more relatable rom-com scenario while generating laughs that should still satisfy "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" fans.

Unfortunately, stretching things out dilutes the charms of Segel and Blunt, which are considerable.

Comedy means different things to different people, but I'm pretty sure that most everyone agrees that it's best when it's quick and funny. The Five-Year Engagement is neither.

Sometime around what I guessed to be the one-hour mark in The Five-Year Engagement, I checked my watch and honestly thought the battery had given out. Five years doesn't begin to tell the interminable tale.

Jason Segel's films all suffer from the same two problems: editing and raunch. It keeps his movies from being classic chick flick comedies and relegates them to the status of mild chucklers soon forgotten. The funny gets lost in a sea of pointless footage. Since women are a primary audience for films like this, I think it's better to err on the side of less raunchy humor. No woman ever left a movie yet saying, "I wish there had been more raunchy humor." Watch Love, Actually to get the feel of how to do this. It may just be the difference between what constitutes raunchy to a male producer... and if so, maybe hire woman editors.

The Five-Year Engagement is a romantic comedy that is more romance than comedy and its too bad considering the cast. Its so hard for Jason Segel to be not be hilarious but I really didn't find him funny and Emily Blunt was not overly funny either. The people who are funny in the movie are the supporting cast, which boasts Chris Pratt, Kevin Hart and the underrated Randall Park. The movie is also quite a bit too long, which is a common problem for Judd Apatow's films (although he only produced this film).

This type of romcom is new, and feels very fresh. It has very little movie clichés in it, and tries to avoid them completely. Instead, it goes for being different and quirky, and somewhat funny. The story and plot points are weak in the middle, but the beginning and end are definitely worth it.

What a drag! Worryingly enough the title should have been a clear give away that this would be a long and tedious process, but I didn't listen. And it felt sooooo stretched out and ironically unengaging!

it has a few funny moments . The jokes are overrated, it feels like if Nicholas Stoller [ writer, director ] is tired of doing this . The timing in the acting with the secondary actors is so bad, and the music even is by itself good ... gets cheesy 3 or 4 times . The runtime is 124 min but if you decide to watch it you are going to feel like if it lasts 3 1/2 hrs .