Review

HOW TO STEAL A MILLION

Released: 1966
Director: William Wyler 
Starring: Audrey Hepburn & Peter O'Toole

Grade: A
  

How to Steal a Million belongs in the rare category of films that manage to combine comedy, suspense, and romance into one seamless package (the other one that springs to mind is 1963's Charade.) A somewhat neurotic Audrey Hepburn and an oh-so-charming Peter O’Toole join forces to steal a fake work of art, all while drenched in mod style. It’s one part heist movie and one part romance, the kind of movie I could easily see men and women enjoying equally (which is a rare thing among rom coms.)

“I don’t sell them to poor people, I only sell them to millionaires and they get great paintings like this one.” That’s the central argument of Charles Bonnet, master art forger and father to Audrey’s Nicole. Art forgery runs in the Bonnet-blood, Nicole’s grandfather carved his own Cellini’s Venus (modeled after Nicole’s grandmother). Charles’ forgeries have gone undetected for ages and he’s grown cocky. So cocky in fact, he lends his prized Venus for display at a Paris museum. The only problem is the museum makes it a policy to run tests on all of its art. One quick examination would be enough to reveal the forgery and put Charles in prison for life. To save her father the fate of prison (and herself the fate of exile in America), Nicole decides to steal the unstealable Venus. To do so she enlists Simon Dermott (O’Toole), an art thief she accidentally shot in the arm one night in her house.

Peter O’Toole, with his bright blue eyes and equally dazzling smile, is perfectly cast as the assumed-art-thief. He’s charming and flirtatious with just a little bit of goofiness thrown in. O’Toole’s malleable face perfectly registers how flabbergasted he is at just about everything Nicole does. “I’m a society burglar, I don’t expect people to rush around shooting me.”

Hepburn is also great, playing a wealth woman always on the verge of a nervous breakdown due to her father’s felonious hobby. Nicole asks Simon to meet her for drinks to enlist his help on the Venus heist. Her normally chipper persona is replaced with a femme-fatal one. Dressed head-to-toe in black lace, Nicole attempts to put on the cool exterior of a woman accustomed to a life of crime. Only Simon’s facial reactions (and his occasional faux-noir-speak) let us in on the joke- that he thinks Nicole is being just as ridiculous as the audience does. It’s a brilliant scene that establishes how far Nicole will go to save her father, and how out of touch with the crime world she is, all while trusting the audience to get the joke without having to spell it out. It’s the kind of scene that makes you sigh and say, “they just don’t make films like this anymore.”

Most of the film focuses on the heist itself. Simon doesn’t fill Nicole in on his full plan so she serves as an audience stand-in, discovering the details only as they’re set in motion. And boy, is it a great plan. Using only a magnet, boomerang, costume change and a few tools, Simon manages to pull off the crime of the century. The best thing about the plan is the way Simon relies on human psychology as the lynchpin of it all. The machine guarding the Venus may be infallible, but the humans controlling that machine are perfectly capable of making mistakes. One false alarm is annoying. Two false alarms are enough to make anyone turn off the alarm system. After that, it’s as easy as plucking a flower from someone else’s garden

This was one of my favorite movies as a kid and one I would always sit down and watch when it came on TCM (I know, I was a weird kid). Heist films hold up surprisingly well on multiple viewings. I suppose it’s because the thrill doesn’t come from whether or not they will pull off the heist (they almost always do), it comes from seeing the details fall perfectly into place. It’s one of the reasons I can watch Ocean’s Eleven every time it comes on TV. The criminals make it look so easy, but in a way you can only spot after the fact (“Oh, why didn’t I think of that?”) I’m impressed every single time I watch the magnet-key-rope scene in How to Steal a Million. Sure you need a very specific kind of door to make it work, but it’s still a brilliant idea that makes you wonder what kind of seedy-past the screenwriters had.

It’s also fun to think about how much easier it must have been for criminals before the advent of constant camera surveillance. In fact, art forgery must have been a lot easier too, before the computer advances of today. I’m impressed anyone still manages to pull off forgeries. By comparison to our CSI-obsessed world, it seems practically easy to be a criminal in the swingin’ sixties.

The era is a huge part of this film. Nicole’s wardrobe is practically a fashion show of mod couture and the constant drinking, kissing, and getting engaged add a wild sixties energy to the whole proceedings. There’s also a lot of forced kisses played for laughs that started to make me uncomfortable and reminded me that for all of the style the sixties got right, there were a lot of politics the era got wrong.

We’ve covered the heist, now how about the romance? O’Toole and Hepburn are fabulous together which is a good thing considering that they spend so much time locked in a tiny closet. Her grace and his charm help shape a feisty yet sweet romance between the two. In a nice twist (the film has several), it turns out Simon knew the statue was a worthless fake and agreed to steal it simply because he liked Nicole. In any other movie I could quibble with the quickness of his affections, but, c’mon, it’s Audrey Hepburn. Anyone call fall in love with her in five minutes.

For those not accustomed to the pacing of old movies, How to Steal a Million might feel a bit slow. I think the pacing works beautifully, however, pulling us into the tension of that tiny little closet and building suspense as each phase of the plan is set in motion. So much of the comedy in this film (and I would call it laugh-out-loud-funny) comes not from the lines, but from the reaction shots. It’s a film full of people with large eyes who know how to widen them just enough to get a laugh. The film occasionally slows down to allow us to revel in a great reaction, and I’m only too happy to follow along.

How to Steal a Million is a near perfect movie with wit, charm, and some good ole fashion robbery to boot. It’s a film that celebrates forgery, yet feels fresh upon every viewing. It’s also a film in which romance, though ultimately crucial to the plot, feels secondary to just how much fun everyone onscreen is having.

Reality factor: Art forgeries, high stakes robberies, and hidden identities. It might not be realistic, but it’s real good. [1 out of 5]

Eye-candy factor: Peter O’Toole is the epitome of the suave sixties swinger. He’s an authentic Don Draper with a little less moral ambiguity and the world's bluest eyes. 
[4 out of 5]

Aww factor: Only Audrey Hepburn and Peter O’Toole can make breaking-and-entering utterly romantic. I’d give it a higher score if it weren’t for all of those uncomfortably aggressive kisses. [3 out of 5]

Writer's Favorite

There are movies I love beyond reason. On this blog, I refer to these films as Writer’s Favorites. A Writer’s Favorite doesn’t necessarily have to be a guilty pleasure (although it often is), it’s just a movie I love so much there is no way I could ever watch it objectively. Rather than try to give these films any kind of grade, I hope to illuminate why I love them despite (or sometimes because of) their flaws.

HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE KATE & LEOPOLD

 

Oh Kate & Leopold. You are bad. Oh so bad. I watch you and I see that, I really do. I see your nonsensical time travel plotline, I see your past-her-prime-Meg-Ryan, I see your blatant female wish fulfillment, I see your happy-ending-with-a-terrible-message. But then Hugh Jackman tucks me into bed and lays with me and holds me in his giant, manly arms as I fall asleep. Oh, wait, that’s not me? That’s a character in a movie? What’s her name?

You see even though Kate is a titular character in this 2001 movie, she doesn’t really matter. She’s a stand in for every woman who’s ever wanted a man to make her dinner, hire a violinist, waltz with her, make love to her, then have coffee and breakfast ready in the morning when she wakes up. Like I said, she’s a stand in for every woman.

Plot? I guess that’s important. Only in the sense that some mumbo-jumbo about time portals and a criminally-underused-Liev-Schreiber transport Leopold (Jackman), Duke of Albany, from 1876 to early 2000s New York where Meg Ryan has terrible, pointy hair and people still use palm pilots. The science doesn’t make sense, but that doesn’t really matter. What matters is that overworked, sort of sexually-harassed Meg Ryan gets a polite, sensitive, noble, man who falls in love with her. Did I mention he rides a horse through Central Park to chase down the guy who stole her purse?

Kate is an amalgamation of all of the worst female rom com tropes. She’s a neurotic career woman (she wears pants so you can tell), she’s stressed over a bad breakup, she’s clumsy for no reason and she yells a lot. But Hugh Jackman is so good it literally doesn’t matter. Kate could be played by Roberto Benigni and I would still love this movie.

Jackman is unique in his ability to be both utterly masculine and gracefully feminine (for comparison take a look at his turn as Wolverine in X-Men and his performance as Peter Allen in the Broadway musical The Boy from Oz.) It’s an ability that makes him perfectly suited for playing a 19^th Century Duke. Men were men back then, but they were also fairly effeminate- waxing poetically about the culinary arts and having manservants dress them. Jackman balances Leopold’s brazen courage with a polite attentiveness and just a hint of emotional vulnerability. He plays Leopold entirely straight and his stone-faced shock at modern life (where you need to pick up your dog’s poop) provides most of the film’s rather thin laughs.

The other highlight is Breckin Meyer (aka Travis from Clueless) as Kate’s brother Charlie. He’s a modern day pseudo-slacker-actor who provides a nice counterpoint to Jackman’s buttoned-up propriety. He’s a sweet guy trying too hard to be cool and all he needs is for Leopold to tell him what women want- to be complimented and pampered. (Is that so hard?)

Did I mention this movie pays homage to my all time favorite movie, Breakfast at Tiffany’s? It’s enough to make a girl swoon. Thankfully it’s also enough to make me forgive (more like ignore) the film’s “happy” ending, which starts to seem a little less happy once you think about it. Leopold has to go back to the 19^th century, seeing as how he’s got to invent the elevator and all that. Kate, in a literal leap of faith, decides to follow him back in time and live out her life as a duchess. It’s all nice and peachy and they waltz away as the credits role. The thing is, Kate has to leave her job (where she just got a promotion), her brother (whom she seems close with) and her friends (I’m not sure she has any, but she seemed to like her assistant okay) for a man she’s known for, at tops, a week. Not only that, she has to leave behind things like modern medicine, running water and the right to vote. Not quite as peachy as it’s originally depicted.

And then…who am I kidding? If Hugh Jackman wanted to marry me I’d probably give up the right to vote too. Just kidding! That’s horrible! (Hugh, if you’re reading this, I’m not kidding. Call me.)

Random Thoughts

ON DISNEY, NOSTALGIA AND GROWING UP

 

I recently turned 23 (insert me freaking out about turning 23 and everyone else laughing at me because, well, I'm turning 23). The night before my birthday, my roommate and I sat around listening to Disney music. (We actually danced around like maniacs, but isn't it nicer to picture us sipping Chardonnay and discussing the ways in which Hamlet influenced The Lion King?) It's incredible to me that after several years of not watching Disney movies on any sort of regular basis, I can still remember every word to nearly every song and can picture pretty specific visuals as well. In my experience, it's the things from my childhood that I'm able to hold onto the longest. I imagine most people have shows/songs/films they watched endlessly in their youth that stick with them today. For me, most of them were produced by Disney (along with a slew of non-Disney animated films that tried to coast along on Disney's coattails. Things like Anastasia, Thumbelina, and Ferngully.)

Disney has been a childhood powerhouse for decades, but I think my generation feels particularly tied to the company and its films. We grew up just as Disney was reemerging as both a creative and commercial force. After experiencing a slump in the 70s and 80s, Disney went through a “Renaissance,” beginning with The Little Mermaid, which was released in 1989 (the year I was born). They followed up The Little Mermaid with Beauty and the Beast (1991), the first animated film to be nominated for the Oscar for Best Picture (and the only one until Up in 2010 once the category had been expanded to ten nominees.) The Disney Renaissance also included Aladdin (1992), The Lion King (1994), Pocahontas (1995), The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996), Hercules (1997), Mulan (1998), and Tarzan (1999). After the 90s, Disney continued to produce animated films, but none of them saw much commercial or critical success (outside of the vastly underrated Lilo & Stitch.) Shrek put competing animation house Dreamworks on the map, and most of Disney's biggest successes in the early 2000s came in collaboration with Pixar. Recently, Disney animation has seen some newfound spark with 2009's The Princess and the Frog and 2010's Tangled, but they no longer dominate the animation-market as they once did.

Disney is something of a uniting factor for people my age. In college I met a lot of people from all over the country. We grew up in different communities and had different relationships with our families. We had different religious backgrounds, different political affiliations (well, not really, I went Northwestern after all) and different socio-economic backgrounds (to an extent.) Yet Disney, and particularly the films of the Renaissance period, crossed seemingly all differences between us. I bet that most people ages 20-29 could sing along with Hakuna Matata without thinking twice.

Disney has been producing films for about 75 years and while the studio struggled to produce major hits in the 70s and 80s, there is still a huge cannon to choose from. Which means that not only can I connect with people my own age through Aladdin, I can connect with people of other generations through films like 101 Dalmatians or Cinderella. In fact, my mom and I share the same favorite Disney movie, Lady and the Tramp. 

What I find some powerful about media (film, television, books, music) is its ability to span time and space. In our digital age everything is a click or download away and media from all eras can be experienced again and again. I've talked in a few of my reviews about how much I like when characters in films talk about other films. A lot of my friendships are strengthened by a shared love of a movie, book or TV show. Alongside Disney, the Harry Potter series is probably the second strongest uniting cultural factor for my generation. I grew up alongside Harry and his friends, reading about his final year at Hogwarts (sort of) as I was preparing to enter my final year of high school.

Rereading Harry Potter or listening to a Disney soundtrack connects me to my youth and makes me nostalgic for a time when someone else made my lunches and drove me where I needed to be. In other words, it allows me to connect with a point in my personal history. It also allows me to connect with culture and history at large. It's incredible to think that 101 Dalmatians, which was released in 1961, can be equally resonant and nostalgic for my 55 year old aunt, my 23 year old self and my 7 year old cousin. To each of us, it was a movie of our youth and we could probably all hum along to the Cruella de Vil song.

Disney gets a lot of flack for being an evil corporation (a charge I'm not necessarily denying) and for producing sexist films. The last complaint I do take some issue with. Sure Cinderella, Snow White and Sleeping Beauty need to be rescued by princes, but these films were made in an era that isn't generally remembered too fondly in terms of women's rights. It's not like there were a lot of pro-feminist films produced during the 40s and 50s. I also think Disney made a big effort to redeem itself during the 90s with some much stronger female characters like Belle, Jasmine and Mulan (I still have some issues with the whole Ariel leaving her world for a man she just met thing, but on the whole there are some pretty cool Disney ladies). Sure their animation gives them thin waists and impossible curves, but the male characters often have ridiculous physiques as well (taken a look at Hercules lately?)

Even if Disney heroines occasionally need rescuing, at least they are the protagonists of their own stories. Hell, half the time the princes don't even have names! These films tell the story of young women who overcome a struggle and get a happy ending. Disney has given us a whole army of awesome female characters and when I was a kid playing "Ariel" didn't involve sitting around waiting for Eric, it involved running around my house with my mom's bra over my t-shirt pretending I was exploring a hidden grotto. Disney gave me characters and worlds to build upon in my own imaginary games. It inspired my creativity and got me excited about creating my own stories and performances. 

I know many people think of the entertainment industry as a somewhat frivolous one. While I can't deny that it is an excessively expensive industry, movies, television and other media have played such a crucial role in forming our culture that it would be silly to deny their importance now. Maybe I'm just getting nostalgic in my old age (hardy har), but Disney has been with me for my whole life. It was there when I first began school, when I moved to a new state, and when I entered middle school. I sang along to A Whole New World with my friends in high school and with a new group of friends in college. It's comforting to think that, as I start to make my way into the post-collegiate-twenty-something (oh my god I'm almost 25!) stage of my life, Disney is still there when I just need to dance it out on a Wednesday night. 

I'm interested to hear what you think so leave a comment in the comments section below. Do you think films and TV are important to our society or just frivolous entertainment? Does Disney get a bad rap or is its criticism deserved? What were some of your favorite childhood movies? What Disney movie defined your childhood and which one is your favorite as an adult? Feel free to contribute to the conversation below! 

An Announcement

Like the blog? Then "Like" the blog!

Rom Coms and the Real World has a brand new Facebook page! Like us on Facebook to stay up to date on all of the latest postings. You'll also get content you won't get on the blog.

Looking for an even easier way to keep up with Rom Coms and the Real World? Get all posts and reviews sent directly to your email inbox. Just enter your email address on the right side of the page. No spam, just reviews and posts sent directly to you.

If you want to get in touch with me personally, just send an email to romcomblogger@gmail.com. Feel free to send questions, comments, film recommendations or funny jokes. I'd love to hear from you!

As always, leave a comment on any or all of my reviews letting me know what you think of the film. And check back soon for a brand new post on Disney and nostalgia. 

Review

THE FIVE YEAR ENGAGEMENT

Released: 2012
Director: Nicholas Stoller
Starring: Emily Blunt & Jason Segel

Grade: C
 

There's a ten minute chunk in the middle of The Five Year Engagement that perfectly encapsulates everything the movie gets right and everything it gets horribly wrong. In one scene, a late night bedroom chat slowly builds into a full-blown argument and ends with a sweet epilogue. It's a well-acted, well-paced moment that manages to be both honest and funny. In the next scene Jason Segel has grown a mountain man beard and serves his guests venison pie as everyone drinks from mugs made out of deer hoofs. It’s gross, painfully unfunny, and a complete tonal shift the film never quite recovers from.

Tonal shifts (which were also an issue in Salmon Fishing in Yemen, the last Emily Blunt film I reviewed) are one of my biggest pet peeves in filmmaking. I'm willing to get on board with just about any world a filmmaker wants to create and I love films that play around with structure, but there should be some consistency in the world of the film. All films require the audience to suspend its disbelief and accept the world of the film. That world is usually established within the first fifteen minutes of the film and breaking it is jarring and confusing for the audience. In other words, once Lord of the Rings is firmly established as a dramatic fantasy, it shouldn't introduce an alien invasion in the third film. (See also: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull). 

The Five Year Engagement starts out as a charming film about a relatively grounded love affair between two sarcastic people. It's got a low-key, hangout vibe and while some of the supporting players are a little heightened, the whole thing feels fairly realistic. To jump into an over-the-top comedy halfway through the runtime only serves to remind the audience that there is an outside force controlling the world onscreen. It's a shame that such a drastic derailment is inflicted on an otherwise charming film.

As the film opens Tom (Jason Segel), is nervously headed to an elaborate proposal with his girlfriend of one year, Violet (Blunt). She notices his odd behavior and he spills the beans on the plan. It's a charming moment between the two and immediately establishes both as enjoyable characters. Seeing a big-foot-sized man nervous is always funny and Violet's immediate apology over spoiling the surprise subverts a lot of expected rom-com cliches. In a lesser movie, Violet would have thrown a fit over having the surprised ruined (in the way high-strung-female-characters are wont to do in rom coms). Instead, Violet is overjoyed and eager to continue with the Tom's plan, even though she knows how it will end.

Emily Blunt is one of the best rom com actresses working right now and she brings a lovely improvisational feel to her dialogue. Her characters tend to be smart, funny and rational in a way most female rom com characters aren't. I don't know if the credit lays with Blunt's acting, or if she just picks good scripts for herself, but it's refreshing to see an actress play a rational rom com heroine for once. Segel is her equal in every way, bringing the same loping, goofy quality he's known for on How I Met Your Mother.

After the initial engagement, a series of various setbacks and surprises continue to push back the date of the wedding. Violet's sister Suzie (Alison Brie) finds herself pregnant and quickly marries the father, Tom's best friend Alex (Chris Pratt). (On a side note this means a Community actor marries a Parks & Rec actor. I don't watch either show but I'm sure TV nerds everywhere are passing out from the sheer joy of it all).

Violet gets accepted to a Psychology PhD program at the University of Michigan and the two decide to officially postpone the wedding and move to Michigan. Violet and Tom exchange sunny San Francisco (where Tom works as a chef) for snowy Ann Arbor (where Tom gets a job at a fast food joint). As Violet blossoms (pun intended!), Tom wilts, feeling stifled by the small-town-deer-hunting mentality of Ann Arbor, but trying to hide his unhappiness for Violet's sake. Everything starts out well enough, with Blunt and Siegel establishing some very believable chemistry and a theme of sacrifice building nicely. And then things take a turn for the bizarre.

The film was marketed as being "from the producers of Bridesmaids" and about half way through it seems someone decided there wasn't enough crudeness to warrant that label and decided to up the ante. The late night fight scene I mentioned earlier marks the films high point and pretty much the last moment I truly enjoyed. The fight occurs because Violet has been offered an extension on her program that would require the couple to stay in Michigan for several more years. Tom feels like he is giving up his dreams for Violet, Violet is afraid of giving up her dreams for him. It's a well-written scene that manages to be both touching and funny. Tom announces he wants to be alone, but stops Violet when she starts to climb out of bed. "I just want to be alone with you." It's a sweet line that again plays against the traditional conventions of romantic comedy fights. It's a shame the film can't trust moments like this one to carry the comedy.

Instead things go horribly awry and Tom becomes a bizarre caricature of himself complete with muttonchops and an obsession with deer hunting. I know I'm harping on this shift a lot, and part of me thinks I shouldn't let it ruin what began as strong film, but it does a gross disservice to an otherwise likable character in a way that is neither believable nor funny. This scene is so weird that my roommate and I felt certain it was a bizarre dream-sequence. The film went on for a good twenty minutes before we realized no one was going to wake-up and set the world right again.

Tom's downfall drives the couple apart and one drunken night Violet kisses her professor/colleague Winton (a very reserved Rhys Ifans). Guilt ridden, Violet reaffirms her love for Tom and decides to restart plans for their wedding. Much less picky this time around, the two agree on an unwanted Korean wedding cake and a moose-loge reception. At the last minute however, Violet confesses her indiscretion and Tom can't seem to shake it from his mind. At their rehearsal dinner he chases Winton through the streets in a scene that works better than it should due to Ifans' smart choice to underplay everything in a that oh-so-British way. Tom drunkenly sort-of hooks-up with a coworker (in another painfully unfunny scene that relies much too heavily on the crazy-sex-driven-woman trope), passes out in the snow and has a toe amputated. (I'm not exaggerating when I say things get weird). Tom and Violet breakup, he moves back to San Francisco and she shacks up with Winton.

It was at this point that I began to check my watch pretty regularly. The film clocks in at two-hours and the repetitive nature of the on-again/off-again wedding plans make it feel even longer. Showing Violet and Tom in their post-engagement-breakup relationships feels like a waste of time, particularly when it seems obvious the two of them will end up back together before long. That reunion comes at Violet's grandmother's funeral (the death of grandparents is a running joke throughout the film). Tom and Violet decide to take things slowly over the summer and then, of course, realize they are actually meant for each other. In the last fifteen minutes the film suddenly seems to remember it's supposed to be a romantic comedy and turns out all of the stops with not one, but two proposals, and a goofy pick-your-own-adventure-wedding. 

I could quibble with the fact that Violet and Tom agreeing to get married without settling those crucial issues like where they'll live is kind of disconcerting. The film is pushing hard for an it-will-never-be-perfect theme, but that is largely ignoring the fact that it's probably a good idea to have conversations about where to live and whether or not to have kids before tying the knot. Since we're living in the rom com world where romance trumps all, I can't really criticize the film for taking the easy way out. 

The ultimate problem is that The Five Year Engagement tries to be both a slice-of-life romance and a crude comedy and doesn't really succeed at either. There are some well written and well acted moments, such as when Violet argues that Winton kissed her rather than the other way around and Tom replies "There was a reason he felt like that was an option." The film is really at it's best when it just lets it's leads hang out together, but unfortunately Blunt and Siegel spend more time apart than together onscreen. The supporting characters are largely too over the top (a common complaint in these reviews) and pull too much focus from the central story. I could have done entirely without the Alex/Suzie romance and their rapidly aging children (their supposedly five-year-old child looks like she's about nine). On the other hand, Mindy Kaling, as one of Violet's colleagues, manages to steal just about every scene she's in. (Which I also complimented her for in my review of No Strings Attached.) Her deadpan delivery of "I would eat ten million donuts after watching The Notebook" is in the running for best lines of the movie. Like Blunt, Kaling manages to deftly make her dialogue seem improvised and genuine.

Unlike a typical rom com, The Five Year Engagement tries to engage (pun also intended!) with some more serious themes. Sacrifice, compromise and honesty are touched upon throughout and given Violet's degree in psychology, there's also a lot about delayed gratification. Eat a stale donut now or wait twenty minutes for a fresh one. It's a rather silly metaphor but it's a stab at something a little deeper than just romantic fun. The characters, despite their goofiness, have a certain maturity about them and I appreciate that Violet and Tom's breakup is done on polite terms, rather than in an overblown fight. Likewise, their reunion feels like a natural progression rather than a plot development. Without the bizarrely unfunny bits and with a less hokey ending, there might be a pretty great movie hidden inside The Five Year Engagement. 

Reality factor: I’ve talked enough about the fact that I don’t like when movies shift from a realistic tone to a heightened one, so instead let’s just talk about how cool it is that we get a male character giving up his career to support the career aspirations of a female one. It's not a common storyline in any medium and it's nice to see that Violet's career is taken as seriously as Tom's. (I'm getting shades of Friday Night Lights here. Come on y'all.)  [3 out of 5]

Eye-candy factor: Lily would probably be excited to see Jason Segel half-naked, but I’m not sure I am. [2 out of 5]

Aww factor: Blunt and Segel have a believable chemistry that keeps their relationship grounded even as the movie spins out of control. Also Emily Blunt as a weird sex-mime is simultaneously hilarious and sweet. [4 out of 5]

An Open Letter...

An Open Letter to Grey's Anatomy

 

Dear Grey’s Anatomy,

We need to talk. We’ve been apart this summer and it's given me some time to think. Things just don’t feel the same between us anymore, Grey's. I admit it took me longer than it should have to get to know you. For a while you were just a show my sister watched. Sure, I might have tuned in for a ferry crash or bomb scare, but those were novelty episodes. I didn't really get to know you, Grey's, until three summers ago. 

Ah that fateful summer when our relationship really exploded. Remember those late nights as I desperately searched for you on Megavideo? And then I finally broke down and got a Netflix account and things really began to heat up. I could watch you all night long, as many times as I wanted. Ours was a whirlwind romance, Grey’s. Five seasons in two months. You asked me to pick you, choose you, love you, and I did Grey's Anatomy, I did.

I’d never seen anything like you before Grey’s. I never told you this, but you were my first medical drama. And you were so good Grey’s. So sexy. So fresh. You had a young cast, hip music and a near-perfect balance of comedy and drama. There were patients to care about and romances to follow. Do you remember those days Grey’s? They seem so long ago. Back when Alex was a jerk and George loved Meredith. Back before Burke (Burke!) and Cristina were an item. Back when Bailey was called the Nazi and Meredith was dark and twisty. 

You took me places I’d never gone before, Grey's. You introduced me to Denny and just as quickly ripped him away from me. Then the interns Spartacus-ed it to save Izzie’s job and I fell in love with you all over again. You magically transformed Addison from a villain to a redheaded goddess. George got syphilis, Meredith got drunk, the Chief got sober. George performed heart surgery in an elevator, Cristina hid Burke's tremor, and Mark Sloan got a stupid McNickname. 

It hasn't all been fun and games Grey's. You made me cry harder than I've ever cried before. When George’s dad died, when Cristina lost her baby, when Bailey did her peds residency. You made me feel Grey’s. You melted my cold, cold heart and left me sobbing in my bed at 2am. But I loved you for that Grey’s, I loved you for making me feel in ways I didn’t think possible. 

You've done some other great things, Grey's. In an era noted for a gradual whitening of television, you feature an ensemble of powerful characters of many races and genders. And that’s a big deal Grey’s. You have one of the most diverse casts on TV and I love that about you. Even more importantly, you don't feel the need to define any of your characters based solely on their race. Bailey isn’t awesome because she’s black, she’s awesome because she’s Bailey. 

You’ve changed over the years Grey’s. You introduced new characters. Some, like Callie, I loved. Others, like Hahn, I hated with the passion of a thousand suns. There's no denying  things got weird sometimes. Like when Meredith died and went to limbo, or when Izzie was banging Denny’s ghost. Even though I didn't say anything, I noticed the weirdness. Izzie nursed a deer back to health, interns started doing surgeries on themselves, George and Izzie slept together (I know, I want to forget it too Grey's, but we both know it happened). But every time someone shouted "Get out of my OR!" or started a passionate declaration with "You don't get to..." I was sucked in all over again. I learned to love Lexie Grey and lusted after the Adonis-like Avery Jackson. I cried when George walked a cancer-striken-Izzie down the aisle to marry Alex. 

I think we can both admit that the past few years haven’t been your best. Sure Hunt is one of my favorite characters and Arizona is pretty adorable, but some of that initial spark is gone. Maybe because you keep killing people Grey’s. (Seriously, I think you should probably talk to someone about that). Denny, Ellis, George, Susan Grey, Reed, Charles. And if you don’t kill them, you banish them forever. Burke, Izzie, Teddy, Addison, Sadie, Ava/Rebecca. Where have they all gone Grey’s? 

This might be hard to hear, but I've thought about leaving. Like when Arizona went to "Africa." But then you gave me one of the most heart-racing two hours of television when that shooter took down the hospital Rambo-style. How could I leave you after that Grey's? You needed me. And I needed you too. 

Don't think it was easy for me to make it through that musical episode. I can tell you were as embarrassed by that as I was, but we've all made mistakes and I'm willing to forgive you. But this isn't just a one time thing Grey's. You seem determined to destroy everything I loved about you in the first place. Why is Kepner suddenly a religious-nut? Why would Owen cheat? Why does Cristina get pregnant every other episode? (Seriously has she never heard of birth control?) 

And that plane crash Grey's, what was that about? I know Lost was popular, but this is just making you look desperate. I admit, I liked last night’s episode more than I expected. The weird timeline reversal between this and the premiere may have robbed this episode of some tension but, hey, I can get onboard with some good-old-fashioned-dramatic-irony. You’re racking up some more deaths though, Grey’s, and that makes me nervous. It's only a matter of time before the hospital is subjected to a nuclear explosion and everyone turns into radiation-zombies who occasionally perform songs by The Fray. 

But you know what Grey's, I'd probably stick around for that too. Because no matter how hard you try to drive me away, I just can't abandon those plucky doctors of Seattle Grace. I picked you, chose you and loved you, Grey's, and you don't get to tell me when to stop watching. Now get out of my OR.