Universal Pictures | Release Date: April 27, 2012
6.2
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 119 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
62
Mixed:
36
Negative:
21
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characteres (5000 max)
5
TVJerryMay 2, 2012
The title pretty much sums it up. Jason Segel and Emily Blount are madly in love, but her career causes the delay. It gets predictably, mildly complicated from there. This is a mediocre chick-flick that tries to spice things up with lots ofThe title pretty much sums it up. Jason Segel and Emily Blount are madly in love, but her career causes the delay. It gets predictably, mildly complicated from there. This is a mediocre chick-flick that tries to spice things up with lots of dick jokes and four-letter words. It is mildly amusing, but nothing about the dialogue, situations or performances elevates into any memorable category. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
numericSep 5, 2012
I like Jason Segel, and I think Emily Blunt is fantastic in this movie. On paper this movie should have been a lot better, but clocking in over two hours?! This film is dragged out far too long and there's really very little to be excitedI like Jason Segel, and I think Emily Blunt is fantastic in this movie. On paper this movie should have been a lot better, but clocking in over two hours?! This film is dragged out far too long and there's really very little to be excited about, or laugh at. The jokes are few and far between and around the one hour mark I just wanted it to be over. Cut about 40 minutes out and it could be a lot more solid. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
TheQuietGamerApr 18, 2013
A romantic comedy that actually provides a mature look at relationships and marriages while bringing some truly hilarious moments to the table. It's true this movie can be very funny at times, but ultimately I feel that it falls short ofA romantic comedy that actually provides a mature look at relationships and marriages while bringing some truly hilarious moments to the table. It's true this movie can be very funny at times, but ultimately I feel that it falls short of being, what I would call, a good movie. Instead it manages to be a decent experience with some hilarious moments. What made the movie fall short for me was the two lead characters. I just didn't care about them or their relationship that much at all. Combine this with the fact that 99% of the humorous moments come strictly from the excellent supporting cast (Kevin Hart!) and it's not hard to lose interest in the main characters. Honestly I wished the movie focused more on the supporting cast. In the end it's an ok movie, and there are some touching romantic moments, but for me the whole movie just kind of fell short. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
FDT44Apr 27, 2012
There's no doubting that this 'Engagement' is well-over-due, standing in at about 124 minutes, it tries arduously to remain funny, smart, and slickly-written, but not even its cohesively-paired leads can keep it afloat of the persistentThere's no doubting that this 'Engagement' is well-over-due, standing in at about 124 minutes, it tries arduously to remain funny, smart, and slickly-written, but not even its cohesively-paired leads can keep it afloat of the persistent rawness that just won't let it go. Drowning and ultimately running out of gas from its incessant unevenness, and pacing, 'Engagment' is a few edits away from being several notches above the average rom-com, however, as is, neither the supporting characters' development, nor the much-needed tightening of its improvised sequences are made apparent. Although Blunt (Violet Barnes) and Seigel's (Tom Solomon) performances will be more than enough to pacify casual followers of the genre--even despite the impressive degree of realism derived from two and the central premise--it's simply not funny enough to rationalize its overlong trip of meandering. And, while Blunt and Seigel, together, make a great team, they very quickly, lose empathy from audiences, who after, say, 80 minutes, are no longer interested in watching them anymore, or even concerned with what happens next; this too, especially for the casual moviegoer--the intended audience--becomes more of an exercise in patience than an outing of pleasure. In short, 'Engagement' isn't short enough. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
AkkharSep 24, 2012
The first half was like yeah that's it , a classic way to start a good Rom-com . Story going reat , some funny moments , funny jokes nice impressions . But after the first half it was like so boring ! even the actors was like they got soThe first half was like yeah that's it , a classic way to start a good Rom-com . Story going reat , some funny moments , funny jokes nice impressions . But after the first half it was like so boring ! even the actors was like they got so bored doing the film . it wasnt funny then and the story went rom-com to crappy drama . This could have been a great rom-com if they would look into the story/script more ! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
IllegalDefenseJun 1, 2012
The classic case of a movie that should have been 95 minutes being extended, to its own detriment, by 30 minutes. The good: Jason Segal and Emily Blunt have terrific chemistry and it's easy for a lot of people to empathize with theirThe classic case of a movie that should have been 95 minutes being extended, to its own detriment, by 30 minutes. The good: Jason Segal and Emily Blunt have terrific chemistry and it's easy for a lot of people to empathize with their situation. The bad: the movie is very chatty, the supporting cast doesn't add a whole lot and are annoying at times, and it drags in several sequences that could have been powerful. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
JTKelleyAug 10, 2012
This was an above-average comedy that made two grave errors. The first was attempting to stretch and hour-and-half worth of jokes and plot into a two hour time frame. The second was creating selfish, unsympathetic leads.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
MovieGuysSep 29, 2013
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 theThis 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
ydnar4Mar 18, 2015
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 funnyThe 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). Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews