A struggling actress and her novelist lover each illustrate the struggle and deconstruction of their love affair.A struggling actress and her novelist lover each illustrate the struggle and deconstruction of their love affair.A struggling actress and her novelist lover each illustrate the struggle and deconstruction of their love affair.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Awards
- 1 win & 1 nomination total
Betina Joly
- Stacy Rosen
- (as Bettina Joly)
I.Ginzburg
- Ellen Kaplan
- (as Upa Inspace)
Robert Immerman
- Shapiro
- (as Bob Immerman)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Did you know
- TriviaAnna Kendrick and Jeremy Jordan sang 11 of the 14 songs live, in multiple takes, due to camera set ups. "If I Didn't Believe in You" is shot in one continuous camera move. Jeremy Jordan sang the song 14 times straight through. Anna Kendrick sang "Still Hurting" 17 times over five camera set-ups.
- GoofsWhen Cathy is singing "Goodbye Until Tomorrow" we are to believe that it is 2008. The license plate of the car outside of her apartment is the current NY state gold and blue design, which wasn't put into effect until 2010.
- Quotes
[first lines]
Cathy Hiatt: [singing] Jamie is over and Jamie is gone. / Jamie's decided it's time to move on. / Jamie has new dreams he's building upon. / And I'm still hurting.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Conan: Anna Kendrick/Gabrielle Union/Lee Ann Womack (2015)
- How long is The Last Five Years?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official sites
- Language
- Also known as
- The Last 5 Years
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $3,500,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $145,427
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $42,042
- Feb 15, 2015
- Gross worldwide
- $292,092
- Runtime1 hour 34 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content