Jurassic World (2015)

The good news is that it's definitely the best Jurassic Park sequel. It's also, unfortunately, a recycled version of the original. How can you surpass the original Jurassic Park though? You can only hope to copy it well enough.

Jurassic World felt like more of a logical sequel to the vision of the original. There's a lot of direct references to the original, some very clever, in fact. It's basically fast forward 20 years, and despite their previous disasters, they went ahead and built a dinosaur resort on the original island anyway. I loved the design of the new park, too. Let's be honest, if they somehow did create a real Jurassic Park, I'd be saving every penny for my vacation there.

The effects were pretty good as you'd expect. A few times it had that too much CG look, especially on some of the night scenes. I was happy to see some of the new additions, but I was kind of hoping the look would be updated to account for the more current research and theories. This is kind of explained away with a few lines of dialog though, so that didn't bother me too much.

I enjoyed the cast. I was worried that Chris Pratt might have been miscast (I thought the role need a more serious, action type), but I thought he was okay in the role and I thought he had good chemistry with Bryce Dallas Howard. It's more of an issue with the character(s) being really poorly written. It's not just the main characters either, like there's the older brother character that mopes around, not caring at all that he's on an island full of dinosaurs, ran by her aunt, at that. I couldn't buy that as realistic at all.

I think the biggest problem for me was that I wasn't invested in anything that was going on. I never was scared for any of the characters or concerned for their well being. You see enough of these types of movies and know that none of main characters are going to bite it, so that eliminates a lot of the tension. A few things bugged me here and there, like Bryce Dallas Howard running from a T-Rex in heels. Those must of been some super sturdy shoes in the first place considering they never broke despite all the running and falling around. There's a character death that's both unnecessarily brutal and unearned under normal movie rules. When I hear that Colin Trevorrow wanted to rewrite the script, you can really tell. It's very sloppy, and it's either due to scenes being cut out of the film or the script simply not developing things enough. Finally, there's a part at the end that really bugged me, but I can't really say why without spoiling it. Let's just say there's a huge safety concern considering the proximity of something that seems massively overlooked.

I have to say I was a little disappointed, but my expectations were super high. It's entertaining enough though, and I'd say it's still worth seeing in the theater.

3 (out of 5) Death Stars

The Lego Movie (2014)

It's been said that The Lego Movie is little more than a extended toy commercial. Even if I agreed with that, my general response to this is, "Who cares?" Legos are awesome, and so is The Lego Movie!

How rare is it that you have a series of toys that has stood the test of time. I played with Legos when I was a kid, particularly the generic 80's Space Legos referenced in the film, and decades later my nephews are playing with them. Only they have much cooler Star Wars and Superhero themed Legos. Plus, there's the great Lego video game series, too. Admit it, you've played them. I suppose it helps when you film is based on a product that has a broad, built in audience.

The basic story is a Matrix-esque hero's quest. When attempting to protect a weapon called the "Kragle", Vitruvius (Morgan Freeman) warns Lord Business (Will Ferrell) of a prophecy where someone known as the "Special" will find the Piece of Resistance, the only thing that can stop the Kragle.

Later, we meet Emmet (Chris Pratt), an average guy with no special skills or qualities. While working on a construction site, he sees a woman, Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks), frantically searching for something. When trying to catch up to her, he stumbles down a hole and finds the famed Piece. He has a vision and shortly after is arrested by Bad Cop (Liam Neeson). Emmet learns of Lord, now President, Business' plan to use the Kragle to destroy the world. Believing Emmet is the Special, she rescues him and off they go to thwart President Business' plan.

It's almost hard to put into words how much fun is packed into The Lego Movie. There literally is a laugh a minute, with the gags coming in such rapid fire succession that it's easy to miss everything that's going on. Like many of the better animated films, the humor doesn't pander to a particular age group. There's something for everyone. At times you'll hear a big laugh from the kids, then maybe a handful of adults at something a little more obscure. They even throw in a subtle dig at generic sitcoms and pop music aimed at the masses.

As we get to the conclusion, there's a slight twist that gives the story some weight and makes it more than just about jokes and pretty animation. You'll look back on the film and realize that some of it's creativity, and even the simpler moments, are really more about the imagination of a child. It also reminded me of times where I would refuse to let my nephews take a Star Wars action figure out of the package, as to not ruin it's condition or integrity, when they simply wanted to play with it. Toys, especially Legos, are meant to be played with and inspire creativity, not sit on some old guy's shelf hoping it will gain value some day. Sure collecting has its place, but it helps to be reminded about their true purpose.

Despite Legos not having a ton of articulation, the animation is surprisingly fluid. There some very creative use of Legos to animate rounded shapes like clouds and water. There's some great Transformers type stuff, as well. This is also one of the few movies that I wouldn't hesitate to recommend seeing in 3D. The format fits the the vibrant images and animation well.

Where The Lego Movie really shines is with it's voice cast. As I've mentioned in previous animated films, it's a strength when they can cast recognizable voices, but they don't distract or take you out of the movie. While the cast is filled with big name stars, you're likely to not recognize many of voices until you watch the credits. Many I thought were impressions until I saw they cast the actual person. Chris Pratt, Elizabeth Banks, Morgan Freeman, and the rest are all great, but I think most people will remember Will Arnett's portrayal as Batman as the best of the bunch. He's absolutely hilarious, and sings the best Batman related song of all time. Charlie Day was also another standout as his voice fit his character perfectly. I think you'll see a lot of people quoting his, and other lines, from the film for a while.

Lastly, I have to mention the directing team of Phil Lord and Christopher Miller. These are the same guys behind Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs and 21 Jump Street, so they are really knocking it out of the park so far.

The Lego Movie is truly a great animated family film that appeals to the kid in all of us. It's smart, hilarious and features both great animation and voice acting. I know it's early in the year, but I can already see this in my best of 2014 list and easily my favorite animated film. I can't recommend this movie enough.

5 (out of 5) Death Stars

Spaceship!

Her (2013)

Do you like hearing people have awkward phone sex?  How about stories showing people falling in love with inanimate objects?  Do you like movies set in the future, yet everyone dresses like 1970's grandparents?  Well then Her is the movie for you!

Clearly I'm oversimplifying when talking about Her, as it's anything but a simple movie.  Her is one of those unusual films that oscillates from being brilliant to just plain weird.  This probably shouldn't come as a surprise to people familiar with writer/director Spike Jonze previous work, especially where Charlie Kaufman was involved.

Her is about Theodore Twombly (Joaquin Phoenix), who is currently going through a divorce with Catherine (Rooney Mara).  They had a long, loving relationship, but drifted apart and Theodore's having trouble letting go.  He buys a new, artificially intelligent operating system, mainly to help organize his life.  The OS introduces itself as Samantha (voiced by Scarlett Johansson), and explains how she's designed to grow and evolve.  As Samantha learns more about the world, they continue to bond and eventually develop an emotional relationship.

Based on the premise of the film, I was worried this was going to be another Lars and the Real Girl, which might as well been called "Entire Town Indulges a Sad Man with Mental Health Issues."  Fortunately, Theodore is more grounded than that.  He's actually a fairly normal guy, just a little introverted.  I still had a bit of an issue with someone falling in love with an AI, but after I thought about it for a bit, is it really all that different from a long distance or exclusively online relationship?  I've watched people have relationships where all the interaction was over the phone or at opposite ends of a keyboard.  Either way there's no physical intimacy.  Is that a requirement for love?  Who's to say that's not the direction we're headed.  Followers of my blog are probably aware of my dislike for online dating.  I share a similar dislike for long distance relationships.  I feel like some of the time it's a way of having an easy relationship where there's not as much at stake.  If things get too difficult, you can just end it without much complication.  This is actually a point brought up during the film, so I appreciated the fact they took this on.

Another interesting point Her made was how all of this technology is actually making us less connected.  In many scenes of the film, you see people walking around, talking into their PDA/phone devices, not even looking up at people immediately around them.  We see this all the time now where people stare into their phones, so zoned out that they bump into people, trip over stuff, or worse.  Recently, I was a bar and noticed that every single person sitting in the bar area was looking into their phone rather than interact with anyone around them.  Don't get me wrong, I've been guilty of this, but it's one of the reasons why I'm trying to move away from stuff like Facebook and Twitter.  It's great to be able to connect with people that live far away or you wouldn't have access to otherwise, but I think our future will be much better off if everyone steps away from their computers, puts down their phones, and works on interacting with those around them a little more.

There were a few little things I found distracting.  One of which was whatever Theodore's job was.  He's some kind of letter writing surrogate, but I never got exactly what he did or what the purpose was.  I didn't feel it was explained all that well, and normally I wouldn't have paid it any mind, but since there are a lot of scenes of him at work and interacting with co-workers (mainly Chris Pratt), it bugged me a bit that it wasn't clear.  Another thing that was too cute was the overall look of the film.  It's very 60's/70's styled with lots of reds and oranges.  People wore awful shirts, had unkempt hairstyles, and had those old man pants with the waistline just below their chest.  They even managed to make Amy Adams look frumpy, but not Olivia Wilde (could anything though?).  It was like hipsters take over in the future, which may be the most terrifying aspect of Her.  Lastly, at just over two hours, the film could have been tightened up a bit.  There were a few scenes that went on too long where the point had been made.  On the other hand, they play hilariously unusual video games and I wish I could have seen more of that.

Joaquin Phoenix was wonderfully nuanced.  As I mentioned earlier, you might want to write Theodore off as a weirdo, and he is kind of a dork, but Phoenix makes him sweet and very sympathetic.  He's searching for the same things we all are.  However, he blows it on a real date with Olivia Wilde's character when she was clearly into him, and that's unforgivable.  I was impressed with Scarlett Johansson's voice work, which had very cute sexiness about it.  I also enjoyed Amy Adams, but I wish she would have been in it more considering she was one of the few real-world friends Theodore had and they had previously dated.  I could have used a little more Rooney Mara, but I think that's due to the fact that I wanted to learn more about their relationship and why it failed.

Her is a smart, thought-provoking film that brings up some interesting ideas regarding love, intimacy and general interaction with people.  I can understand how it might be too strange for some, but I think if you give it a chance and go in with an open mind, you'll find yourself thinking about the film for long after.

4 (out of 5) Death Stars

Delivery Man (2013)

A few years ago I heard about a story where there was some delivery guy or truck driver that actually had like 100+ kids in various cities around the country.  I though that's what Delivery Man was going to be about, which probably would have been a more interesting story. It turns out I can't find any links to that story, so I could have imagined it for all I know.

What I didn't realize was that Delivery Man is an American remake of  the French-Canadian film Starbuck, both directed by Ken Scott, and co-written with Martin Petit.  Why "Starbuck"?  It's the anonymous name used by David Wozniak (Vince Vaughn), when he made a large amount of sperm donations when he was younger.  The choice of name struck me as odd as David didn't appear to be much of a coffee drinker, nor a Battlestar Galactica fan.

Due to some issue at the sperm back, David's sperm was used repeatedly and learns that he is the biological father of 533 kids. A large group of these kids are suing to find out their father's identity, and David is given a file with their profiles.  David now has to decide if he wants to come forward.  Also, his girlfriend (Cobie Smulders) reveals she's pregnant, but isn't sure David would make for a good father.

David is that cliched screw-up that hadn't grown up yet, and always seems to be in some kind of mess.  Looking for some way to prove his value as a father, and an adult, he starts reviewing the profiles of his various biological children to check in on them and help them where he can.

He helps out a few of these kids and starts to feel better about himself.  He even views himself as a bit of a guardian angel.  These were some of the better moments of the film.  Unfortunately, many of these kids are not really well developed, so outside of one or two of them, you don't get invested in them at all.  They aren't much more than a single character trait or profession.  The main kid that they do focus on was a creepy guy that you wouldn't want to spend a lot of time with.  Even David talked about how much he was annoyed by him.

One of the issues I had a hard time wrapping my head around was what the actual conflict was.  The kids were only suing to learn his identity.  They didn't appear to be mad at him, or want anything from him financially.  It's mainly an issue of confidentiality, which David never really expresses that he has much of an issue with.  The only real problem comes from the fact once the story gets in the news, he's vilified as some kind of creep, but again, this isn't something he's at fault for.  It's the sperm bank's fault.  Also, for much of the film it's never a matter of if he's going to come forward, but when.  The way he chooses to do it I thought was pretty terrible considering the relationship he had with many of them by the end.  If I were some of the kids, I probably would have been upset by the way he revealed himself.  Oh, sorry, I guess that's a bit of a spoiler...if you couldn't tell that was going to happen during the opening credits.

Another big issue with the film is that it's really not that funny.  Most of the jokes fall really flat, and there's and overall lack of wit or punch to anything.  There's one particular gag that's repeated to the point where it gets annoying, and it wasn't even funny the first time.  I was disappointed that Bobby Moynihan as David's brother (really, you're trying to sell me on Moynihan being related Vaughn?) didn't get more to do, and it seemed like there was a missed opportunity to have more banter within the the family.

It also suffers from lack of focus and plot threads that don't really go anywhere.  There's a thread that persists throughout regarding David owing a large amount of money to some Russian loan sharks.  When this is finally resolved, it has no bearing on the film's conclusion, and you wonder why it was in the film at all.  It was a pretty pointless inclusion.

Vince Vaughn is his usual charming self, even if is trademarked energy isn't there.  He's much more subdued than what we're used to seeing, and I'm not sure that was the best direction.  The film needed a little more life and energy.  On a side note, in a few early scenes I had to wonder if Vaughn was dealing with some back issues.  As someone that's had his share of back issues over the years, I recognized the labored walk of someone dealing with a sore back or back spasms.  As much as I like Cobie Smulders, she's not given much to do here and felt like a wasted casting.  Chris Pratt had a few funny moments towards the end, but he's better than the material given to work with, too.  I just don't understand why you'd get comedic actors from successful TV shows and then not give them anything funny to say or do.

Delivery Man is a middle-of-the-road, sorta feel good, family film that fans of Vince Vaughn will still likely get some enjoyment out of.  It pretty much gets by on his charm.  I admit that I liked the end, but I'm a sucker for sappy endings.  It's one of those films where I can't say I really liked it, but can't bring myself to hate it either.  It's definitely not something you need to rush out and see in the theater, and is better suited for rental or cable.  In fact, if you were flipping channels and caught this you'd probably sit through it and not feel like you totally wasted your time.  Ultimately, it's pretty forgettable though.

2.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

Zero Dark Thirty (2012) - Movie Review

Just when I thought I was done with all of the 2012 Oscar contenders another emerges...

I had almost forgot about Zero Dark Thirty despite the fact that it was one of the year's most anticipated films.  It probably didn't help that it wasn't given a wide release until 2013, and even that date was kicked around (rottentomatoes.com shows it as Jan 11th).  A friend of mine was surprised when I told him it didn't come out on Christmas, and I have friends that saw screenings of this weeks ago.  I just found it odd that a release like this would be so under the radar.

Zero Dark Thirty spans the ten years from 9/11 right up until the operation that found and killed Osama bin Laden.  The trailers for this film make it look like it's more of an action film and military focused, but it's definitely not.  Certainly not for the first two hours anyway.  The story mainly follows the work of Maya (Jessica Chastain), an extremely driven CIA officer focused on finding bin Laden.

A majority of the film revolves around chasing down leads and trying to find a courier that will lead them to bin Laden.  To be honest, I didn't really find this part of the film to be all that interesting. There are a lot of names and jargon being thrown around, and at times I had trouble keeping it all straight.  It's the kind of film you sometimes wish you had a flow chart to refer to while watching. Unfortunately, this is the majority of the film.

That's not to say that it doesn't have its intense moments.  We open with a really brutal and graphic scene of torture involving a man with ties to known terrorists.  I've heard there are complaints that the movie has a pro-torture stance, but I didn't come away from it thinking that or that it glorified torture.  I thought it was presented in more of a matter-of-fact way where the officers believed it was the best and quickest way to get the information they were looking for.  Once that gets shut down, their focus shifts to other methods, and those other methods are what gave them the leads that eventually led to Bin Laden.  You could almost argue the opposite, that if they had continued torturing prisoners, perhaps they never would have gotten to bin Laden.

Maya eventually uncovers enough information to believe she's found bin Laden, but her superiors are not convinced.  You see a lot of stand-offs between Maya and anyone that doubts her.  This is one of the areas where I thought Jessica Chastain shined.  When she'd square off with people, you never doubted that she wasn't going to get what she wanted.

The last 40 minutes or so is where the tension in Zero Dark Thirty ramps up.  I always find it impressive when a movie can still build tension despite knowing how the movie is going to end before even sitting down in the theater.  It reminds of Argo in that way.  Director Kathryn Bigelow seems to have a knack for keeping the tension high, even when things aren't necessarily happening, or always keeping the fear that something may explode at any moment.

Unlike Argo, the problem with Zero Dark Thirty is that it doesn't have the character development of that film.  Outside of Maya, I don't think I could tell you name of any other character in the film. Even with Maya, I couldn't tell you anything about her.  Was she married?  Did she have any kids? Did she even have time for a social life outside of co-workers?  There's a point in the movie where you briefly see a wallpaper on her computer screen of her and little girl, and I couldn't help but wonder if that was her daughter, a niece, or an actual picture of Jessica Chastain.  It makes the movie a little less relatable (and entertaining) when compared to something like Argo.

I also thought the movie could have been cut down a little.  Sure, when covering ten years of actual time you have to show a lot, but at the same time, I felt that a lot of scenes didn't really go anywhere or give you much information.  I credit writer Mark Boal for being thorough, but I don't think they needed to include everything.

I love Jessica Chastain, and I'm sure she'll get an Oscar nomination, but I didn't think this was her best performance.  I can think of a few movies last year where I thought she was much better (and I'm not even talking about her nomination for The Help).  Granted, I don't think it's necessarily her fault as it's just what she was given to work with as far as the character.  Many of her early scenes in the film involved standing off to the side and not saying anything or looking serious.  She does have those good scenes when she'd confront someone, but those aren't very frequent and I didn't come away from this blown away by her performance.

Like Lincoln, the supporting cast is stacked with many great actors in very small roles.  I'm sure it's another instance of taking any role to be in a sure Oscar contender, but it's also a shame when you see an actor you like a lot and they aren't given that much to do.  Kyle Chandler, Mark Strong, Joel Edgerton, Chris Pratt, Mark Duplass and even James Gandolfini have small roles.  In the beginning of the film, I actually thought it focused more on Maya's partner Dan (Jason Clarke) than on Maya.  It's not until he takes a different role in the hunt for bin Laden does the movie focus more on her.  Not go get off on a rant, but how is Mark Duplass in everything these days?  The only person I've seen in more movies over the past year than Mark Duplass is Jessica Chastain.  I like him fine, but does even he lose track of all the films he's been in?

Zero Dark Thirty is a very good movie, but I didn't think it was a great one.  This isn't the type of movie you're going to watch over and over.  The lack of character development makes it more difficult to connect to, and the lull in the middle of the film could have been tightened up.  When you compare it to Kathryn Bigelow's last film (The Hurt Locker), or other Oscar contender's like Argo or Lincoln, I don't think it measures up to the story or performances of those films.  It's still worth watching for the intense beginning and ending though, so I still recommend it as a matinee.

4 (out of 5) Death Stars

10 Years (2012) - Movie Review

Is Channing Tatum omnipresent?  I feel like he's everywhere now.  I suppose it's the year of Channing Tatum, and this was before they pushed back G.I. Joe: Retaliation.

I was a little leery when I heard this was yet another high school reunion movie.  We already had American Reunion earlier this year, which is an increasing disappointment the more I think about it.  How many more variations can we have on the reunion theme? Fortunately, 10 Years is what American Reunion could have been if it had any humanity about it.

The story focuses primarily on Jake (Channing Tatum), who goes to his reunion with his current girlfriend (played by his real-life wife Jenna Dewan-Tatum).  You meet most of the major players at a small pre-party gathering, hosted by former jock Cully (Chris Pratt) and his wife Sam (Ari Graynor).  They've settled down and had a few kids, but Cully is looking forward to cutting loose.  He also desperately wants to apologize for the bullying he did to several of his classmates.  There are close friends Marty (Justin Long) and AJ (Max Minghella), who both really want to see the hot, popular girl Anna (Lynn Collins).  Marty, in particular, is hoping that maybe there's potential for some reunion hook up action.  You have Garrity (Brain Geraghty), who comes with his wife (Aubrey Plaza), but she isn't too thrilled to find out how he used to be back in high school.  There's even the now-famous Reeves (Oscar Isaac), who wrote a hit song, and is anxious to talk to the girl he used to have a crush on.

As the alcohol flows, you find out more about everyone and their stories from high school.  For some of them their old high school personalities resurface, and some get nervous to talk to their old crushes.  You see how even though 10 years has passed, some are still struggling with adulthood. There is a realism to 10 Years that I don't normally see in a movie like this.

It seems that they went to a fairly small school, as nearly everyone was to be fixated on whether or not Jake's ex, Mary (Rosario Dawson), will show up.  She eventually does, with new husband (Ron Livingston), and you could feel the tension in the room.  They build up that something happened between them, but when you find out what it was it seemed a little overblown. I get that because they were homecoming king and queen that all eyes might have been on them, but it's been 10 years.  Not all high school sweethearts work out.  People grow apart and move on.  It's not that it wasn't significant, but with the way everyone was acting, I was thinking it was going to be something more earth shattering.  Thankfully, Jake and Mary get a chance to talk like adults, and the movie doesn't go down a predictable path for these two.  It might have ruined the film if they had.

As for the others, Marty and AJ do catch up with Anna, but it's funny to watch Marty become increasingly frustrated with AJ competing for her attention. Why are you cock-blocking your buddy, AJ?  Bad form!  You also spend a lot of time with Reeves and his crush (Kate Mara), and at first it seemed like they were getting too much time in the movie, but then their story has a nice payoff that made it worth watching.

Cully gets his opportunity to apologize, but as he gets progressively more drunk, he becomes a bully of a different sort.  It's uncomfortably hilarious for us to watch.  As he's shown how he can be on Parks and Recreation and The Five-Year Engagement, Chris Pratt is hilarious throughout the movie.  He was definitely the highlight.  Ari Graynor was also great as she continues to babysit him and get frustrated with his antics as the night goes on.

I almost forgot about Channing Tatum.  He was one of the producers of the film, and even though the movie primarily followed him, it felt like he took a back seat to much of the cast.  It gave the movie a sense of balance, where you didn't feel like the other characters didn't matter.  It was also cute seeing him with his wife.  They had nice chemistry on screen and are a gorgeous couple that will have super babies when their lives take them down that path.

This is the directorial debut for writer Jamie Linden (Dear John, We Are Marshall), and he did a good job of balancing a fun cast and getting good performances out of everyone.  When the movie starts, I was getting excited when I saw people like Aubrey Plaza, Justin Long, Ron Livingston and Anthony Mackie, but I was worried that the cast might be too stacked.  Fortunately, they all get to have their moments as the night goes on. Despite everyone's flaws, they all felt very real and and sympathetic.  I also appreciated that nobody came off as an over-the-top high school stereotype. 10 Years is very funny without trying too hard or going for silly and obvious jokes.

10 Years isn't breaking any new ground as far as premise.  However, it goes to show you that if you have a likable cast and don't fall prey to melodrama, you can still have an engaging and entertaining movie.  As someone that recently had his 20-year reunion, this felt like a very realistic and consistently funny look at one.  10 Years is in limited release, so I strongly recommend it as a rental once it becomes available.

3.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

The Five-Year Engagement (2012) - Movie Review

Jason Segel and Emily Blunt star as Tom and Violet, a couple living in San Francisco that have been dating for a year.  In what shouldn't be a spoiler to anyone, since it's the title of the frigging movie, they get engaged.  Due to career changes and other issues that come up, they have to keep delaying their wedding.  This gets stretched out over several years, once again illustrated by the title.  Can you have spoilers when the title is, in itself, a spoiler?

Right out of the gate, The Five-Year Engagement is very funny and San Francisco natives will probably get a kick out of seeing many familiar sites.  At one point, even I laughed when they went to a neighborhood a friend of mine used to live in and I was like, "Hey, I've been there a bunch before!"  The familiarity helped me get into the movie and identify with it.

Anyway, shortly after their engagement, Violet gets accepted to a two-year graduate program at the University of Michigan. As a compromise, they decide to postpone the wedding and Tom quits his chef job.  Unfortunately, this happens just as he's about to be named head chef of a new restaurant, so as they are leaving there's already an element of 'what could have been' for Tom. Things are going well for Violet after the move, but Tom has difficulty getting work and has too much time on his hands.  Having a lot of time to think probably isn't the best thing in this situation.

As the movie progresses, Violet's stay in Michigan is extended further due to her success and things continue to get worse for Tom.  It becomes less about their engagement and more about how they keep dealing with the strains of their careers, being away from their family and friends and Tom's resentment and depression about the whole situation.  Eventually, it gets to the point where they doubt their whole relationship. 

While that may make it sound like the movie is depressing, it managed to be consistently funny.  It's one of those movies where people were laughing enough that sometimes you couldn't always hear the next thing said.  Like many Judd Apatow-produced comedies, it's a little on the raunchier side for a rom-com.  However, it still manages to feel realistic and have a little more substance that you would normally expect.  I'm reminded of Funny People, another movie that was very funny but ended up dealing with some serious issues.  While The Five-Year Engagement is not a totally conventional rom-com, the way the story develops doesn't leave you with many places to go, so you know how it's going to play out.  The ending had an almost magical, fairy tale feel to it, but at the same time didn't seem cheesy.  

A comedy is usually only as good as it's supporting cast and this doesn't disappoint.  Many of the supporting roles really stand out.  Alison Brie is great as Violet's sister and fans of Community may be surprised to see her speaking with a British accent.  She ends up in a relationship with one of Tom's chef friends, played by fellow NBC Thursday night alum, Chris Pratt.  Those two steal every scene they are in.  Tom's co-worker, played by comedian Brian Posehn, has some great lines, and Chris Parnell was funny as a 'faculty husband'.  The research team Violet works with, featuring Rhys Ifans, Kevin Hart, Mindy Kaling and Randall Park are consistently funny.  I think I enjoyed the supporting characters more than the leads.

That doesn't mean I have an issue Blunt or Segel though.  Emily Blunt keeps up her streak of having great chemistry with whoever she seems to be cast against.  I think she might be the reigning queen of romantic comedies.  Jason Segel gives another good performance as well and it's hard not to sympathize with what his character is going though.  Together, they make for a cute couple and you want to see them work things out.

Director/co-writer Nicholas Stoller teamed up with Jason Segel again and did a pretty good job balancing out the cast and all the elements of the story.  They previously collaborated on Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Get Him to the Greek and The Muppets, so you can find a lot of similarities to all of their previous films in The Five-Year Engagement.

It's not a perfect film though. The main problem with the movie is that it's a little long and starts to drag on a bit.  Granted, with it being 'The Five-Year Engagement' and not 'The One-Year Engagement', they have to cover a lot of time, but it gets to a point where you start to wonder exactly how much of their life we going to witness and if it was actually going to end.  This seems to be a recurring thing with other films in the Apatow family in that they run just a tad too long.  It's a minor complaint though.

There's a part (and I will try not to spoil it) that seemed to be edited very poorly, where a character is getting progressively drunker despite that you haven't seen him drink anything for a while.  While this is happening, their state of undress is also extremely inconsistent.  The scene was done for laughs, so it's easy to forgive and some may not even notice it, but it really stuck out to me as odd.  Oh and speaking of undress, I can probably use a little less nudity from Jason Segel moving forward.

As I commented in my Think Like a Man review, this is the second comedy I've seen in two weeks where one of the characters is a chef and eventually opens his own food truck.  Why is this becoming so common in films now?  I can imagine the start-up costs for a food truck are much lower than opening a restaurant, but they are always super successful and have great food, when normally I don't associate food trucks with either.  It just seems like it's getting to be an overused profession and plot device when they aren't sure what they should do with a character.

Sure, I'm nit-picking a little, but that's my thing.

At it's heart, The Five-Year Engagement is still a consistently funny and sweet romantic comedy about how love and relationships are never perfect, but when you find the right one, you'll find a way to make it work.  While it ultimately doesn't stray too far from typical rom-com conventions and runs a little long, the strong supporting cast helps makes it very enjoyable to watch.  It's a really good date movie to check out this weekend.

4 (out of 5) Death Stars