New on DVD Aug 25 2008 @ 11:30 am
REVIEW: What Happens in Vegas
Directed By: Tom Vaughan
Written By: Dana Fox
Starring: Ashton Kutcher, Cameron Diaz, Dennis Miller, Queen Latifah
Running Time: 99 minutes
Rated PG-13 for some sexual and crude content, and language, including a drug reference
This review was originally published May 10th, 2008.
One imagines that What Happens in Vegas is the sort of film Michael Medved would love—after all, it reinforces traditional values without challenging your previous assumptions, asking you to think, or even questioning your vices. This is the sort of film that—despite the titular metropolis—is designed to “play in Peoria,” as the saying goes. It’s the quintessential bread-and-circuses film, reaffirming the paper-thin presumptions of the middle American masses while entertaining them for an hour and a half. The only surprise? It’s a thoroughly watchable film.
Premises don’t get much more Hollywood-contrived that the one in play here: Ashton Kutcher plays Jack Fuller, a ex-frat bum who inexplicably lives in an (admittedly small) NYC penthouse apartment, and Cameron Diaz plays Joy McNally, an overachiever who works on Wall Street. On the same day, Jack loses his job at his father’s furniture business and Joy gets dumped by her fiancé in front of all their friends. They both do the only logical thing in their respective situations: they head to Vegas. Through yet another entirely unbelievable series of events, they run into each other, get drunk together, and get married in one night. They awake the next morning to find that they’ve made a terrible mistake—and that Jack has won three million dollars.
Nothing solves your problems like a drunken montage.
Needless to say, Joy wants in on this—and so, sues Jack both for divorce and for half the money. The Honorable Judge Whopper (a very funny Dennis Miller, injecting a modicum of a moral compass into the film) isn’t amused by how lightly “kids today” take marriage, and freezes the three million, ordering Jack and Joy to stay married and work on their marriage if they ever want to see their share of the money. Then pretty much everything you expect to happen, happens, and then the credits roll.
All of which makes me wonder, Why is the no-good slob in these movies always the male? One can think of any number of films where a man has to clean up his act, get a job and find a purpose in life to win the girl—Big Daddy, Knocked Up, Fool’s Gold, etc.—but can anyone think of a single film that depicts an unemployed female slob? You could, I guess, make the case that men don’t find a job nearly as attractive in a woman as women tend to find it in a man—but this film presents an opportunity to ignore that, since it’s (ostensibly) about what makes a marriage work, not what attracts people to enter into it in the first place. This film could have distinguished itself from the pack of cookie-cutter rom-coms out there by mixing up the sitcom-style stereotypes a bit. Needless to say, it doesn’t.
With this film, though, I suppose it’s a bit of a moot point since you have to make a film with the talent you have on hand. Ashton Kutcher has consistently proven himself incapable of playing anything other than an obnoxious man-child (The Butterfly Effect, anyone? or maybe The Guardian? any takers?), and he’s actually pretty entertaining here. By “pretty entertaining,” of course I mean, “didn’t make me want to gouge my eyes out”—which is seriously an accomplishment for ol’ Ashton. Actually, the cast here does pretty well all around (with special props going out to Rob Corddry as Jack’s lawyer and Queen Latifah as the couple’s marriage counselor). Director Tom Vaughan appears to have given his actors the chance to improvise a bit here, giving the film some of the feel of Judd Apatow’s recent comedies. It’s nowhere near as good as those—we simply don’t have the level of talent here that Apatow is used to working with—but it’s not bad.
Stay through the credits for some pretty funny outtakes.
What Happens in Vegas isn’t a film that will change your life by any means, but it is noticeably more honest than the average romantic comedy, for one simple admission that it makes: Marriage isn’t happily ever after. Ever. It takes work, regardless of whom you marry. A forced, heavily saccharine ending manages to undermine this somewhat, but of course that’s the bread and butter of films like this—they’re just earnest enough to make the audience think that they’re thinking. What Happens in Vegas is mildly forgettable, and mildly disappointing—but thanks to some surprisingly good performances and a better-than-expected script, it’s not the complete train wreck that an Ashton Kutcher movie usually is. Consider me impressed.
on May 10 2008 @ 12:38 pm 1. Pat said …
You make a very good point when you ask why it’s always the male lead who has to learn to grow up, get a job, etc. It’d be nice to see that stereotype turned its head once in awhile. A movie where the woman has to clean up her act to win the guy? That’d be interesting, at least.
Conversely, there’s the stereotype of the female rom com lead who’s successful in her career portrayed an unhappy, unfulfilled workaholic who just needs the right guy to give her everything she’s been missing. How many times have we seen that? (Diaz in “The Holiday,” Sandra Bullock in “Two Weeks Notice,” Jenna Elfman in “Keeping the Faith,” just off the top of my head.) It’d also be interesting to see a woman who’s good at her high-powered job AND emotionally stable.
But then, there’d be no story, right? : )
on May 10 2008 @ 1:21 pm 2. Colleen said …
Stereotypes are everywhere. Young male slobs have to straighten up their acts. Young unique looking girls just have to learn how to dress hip and wear the right shade of eyeshadow, and they will be loved and popular, grown women always start looking around their house to find the source of the footsteps and blood trail, instead of getting the hell out of the house. Older women are almost always nearly as hot as there grand children…etc
We all have a Hollywood cross to bear.
on May 10 2008 @ 1:22 pm 3. Colleen said …
Oh ya…Fat women do not exist in Hollywood land unless they are comedic or pity friends
on May 10 2008 @ 2:00 pm 4. Luke Harrington said …
Melissa McCarthy’s Sookie character on Gilmore Girls was a good exception to that.
on Jun 05 2008 @ 9:10 pm 5. Luke Harrington said …
^
|
Hey Evan, can we block this guy from posting? I’ve had my eye on him - he uses some sort of bot to post the same comment to every film blog on the Interwebs, in hopes that people will come to his blog (which is lame, by the way) and donate to him (something he actively solicits). It annoys me. A lot.
on Jun 06 2008 @ 11:41 am 6. Evan Derrick said …
Yes, I will bring in the banhammer. THWACK
on Jun 06 2008 @ 11:57 am 7. Luke Harrington said …
Thanks. You’re a good Head Editor (or whatever your preferred title is).
on Aug 26 2008 @ 3:41 am 8. Nick Plowman said …
I totally panned this one. I thought it would have been more fun.
on Aug 26 2008 @ 9:17 am 9. Luke Harrington said …
I dunno, Nick. You gave it two stars, which is only a star off from my rating. You must have gotten some entertainment out of it.
on Aug 26 2008 @ 12:11 pm 10. Nick Plowman said …
To a certain extent, I did. But it didn’t make up for ALL the crap I had to witness in between the good bits.
on Aug 26 2008 @ 12:34 pm 11. Luke Harrington said …
Fair enough. I tend to give mediocre films the benefit of the doubt, but I can’t really blame those who dismiss them.
on Aug 26 2008 @ 1:15 pm 12. Maurice said …
You reviewed this piece of trash? Let me get this straight: You sat down, turned on this mind numbing, Kubrickian-work Orange, peyote-sludged, sphictoid of a film, sat thru it and then wrote about it? Where is your common sense, man? People like you have no idea of the harm that can be caused by more than 12 minutes exposure to Cameron Diaz in any form can cause. I’d rather have been trapped inside the reactor room of the K-1 with four Harrison Fords, two Shia Laboufs, a midget, a ferret and two armadillos at the bottom of Loch Ness ’til Tuesday then spend three picture frames exposed to that witless shrew’s visage on film. You could really hurt your self.
Hey, Ashton! Andy Warhol called for you. You’re at 14:55 and the clock is ticking away, babe. Better make sure that your pre-marital weekly allowance is airtight cause, you couldn’t pass for a movie star if you were in a flying saucer.
Still, I liked the premise of this film. I wish they had selected a better couple to pull it off. Small ideas breed small films and small casts complement the film making process. Okay, Kutcher’s a pinhead but remember “Just Married”? A small film and he and Brittany Murphy carried it well. Maybe because of the balance between the two stars, which is (I feel) the mystical chemistry directors need to make character believable. Sure, they weren’t Hepburn and Tracy but the film wasn’t “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.” Oh heck, Mr. Demi-chew-boy-toy did make that film, didn’t he? Now we know what killed Bernie Mac.
And film characters have to be believable. You can’t just dress up and send them out like it’s Halloween night. If you can’t imagine a character in the situation in real life, it’s hard to suspend belief when they are on the screen. Cripes, that’s my only problem with Tom Cruise: He does so few film roles that I can believe he would be in real life. Like a race card driver, a samurai, Irish boxer, hanging off the side of a mountain, running UA/MGM or married to Mimi Rogers.
Robert Duvall and Robert De Niro are the only two current actors that can, believably, slip in and out of varied roles that do not remind you of all the other characters they have played. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is working down the line to that end as is Christian Bale. But to really obtain that ability, you have to have an invisible quality to what you do. Character actors do this better than leads do. Lon Chaney was the greatest character actor ever until he became one of the greatest actors ever. Charlie Chaplin could do it but seldom did. Tom Hanks is trying but he kinda lost me at “Wilson! Wilson! I’m sorry!”
Hollywood continually casts film that they think the public will want to see based on the following criteria:
1. Who is currently popular at the box office.
2. If they are popular, can we repeat the formula.
3. Are they popular enough to warrant a sidekick.
4. Can we repackage the plot and sell it to the popular stars as a small/independent/labor-of-love-based-on-a-true-story film.
Based-on-a-true-story films always grab a star’s attention. Sometimes, they throw for touchdown and sometimes are tackled for a loss. Most times, they implode a star’s career. Nothing hurts worse than barreling into the third turn at Indy while riding in your Hollywood dragster with everything riding on your film. Think I’m kidding? Look up the film “Operation: Dumbo Drop.” It axed Ray Liotta’s career faster than weed killer on a potted fern. I don’t think Danny Glover has done as well either. R.I.P. Steve Guttenburg.
Maybe Hollywood is harkening back to the olds and old ways. Scripts are cranked out like aspirin tablets and passed down to whomever in the actors pool is next in line for a paycheck. While there many stellar performances every year, we still have a huge influx of has beens and wannabies that shamble through films like a zombie donkey after a carrot. This film was like a vivisection that went to the bone.
Thanks for the review. Please be more careful in the future lest you go blind.
on Aug 26 2008 @ 1:29 pm 13. Fox said …
Maurice-
Are you talking to yourself or the ego that you wear on your sleeve?
on Aug 26 2008 @ 1:36 pm 14. G said …
Hey, I couldn’t get through the whole thing, but I found the Diaz bashing funny.
I like Shia though. That kid can act. He was very funny in Ghostbusters, believable in Disturbia, and dominates A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints despite being surrounded by a whole slew of scene-stealers.
on Aug 26 2008 @ 1:44 pm 15. Fox said …
I think Diaz is respectable. Being John Malkovich, The Sweetest Thing, Charlies Angels : Full Throttle, In Her Shoes… I think she’s great in all of these. I guess she’s an easy target for some.
I just think it’s weird that Maurice called What Happened… a “vivisection” without having seen the movie.
on Aug 26 2008 @ 1:47 pm 16. Fox said …
G-
I forgot to mention… props for mentioning A Guide To Recognizing Your Saints. It got passed over at the theater but it seems to be gaining play as a DVD. I love Channing Tatum in that film. Melonie Diaz too.
Word has it that the director’s second film Fighting - with Tatum again - is underway.
on Aug 26 2008 @ 1:59 pm 17. Evan Derrick said …
While I won’t hate on Kutcher (who is quite the impressive producer) or Diaz, I will say that you would have to threaten to “inject me with feces” (to quote G) in order to get me to watch this.
And Maurice, I’m not entirely sure what you were trying to say, but it was funny. I don’t think De Niro these days plays anyone other than himself, and I would add Johnny Depp, Brad Pitt, and Daniel Day Lewis to your list of actors who can morph into any role necessary.
on Aug 26 2008 @ 3:31 pm 18. Maurice said …
Three things:
1. Fox, you don’t know jack because:
a). I did watch this film. I had to use the
fast-forward button on my dvd and also had
to wear a radiation suit for protection.
b). That is NOT my ego. It is a scar I got at
an adavnce screen for “A Fish Called Wanda”
when my date shanked me. I wear it with
pride and consider it an expression of my
individuality and my belief in personal
freedom.
2. G, the jury is still out on Shia. Looking
forward to “Eagle Eye.”
3. Evan, Brad Pitt is always, ALWAYS Brad Pitt.
He had his shot with “S7ven” and “Fight Club”
and didn’t pull it off. Johnny Depp is creepy
no matter what role. Compare Willy Wonka to
Raoul Duke. Same thing, just minus the
swatter. I can beleive Robert Duvall as an
aging hitman learning to dance down south more
than I can believe D Day clubbing a foe to
death in a bowling alley. But, “There Will
Be Blood” is the best film role anyone has
done since whenever. I really did weep during
the milkshake scene. It was the finest scene I
have ever viewed in my life. Pure Shakespeare.
Seriously, I appreciate you allowing me to post here and am grateful for all the feedback. It’s a nice place to vent and feel welcome. You are all very kind and I enjoy this website very much. Please keep up the good work as it is very much enjoyed on my end.
on Aug 26 2008 @ 3:57 pm 19. Fox said …
Fair enough, Mo, but I think you should apologize to Ms. Diaz. Especially b/c she’s more varied than Phillip Seymour Hoffman… that dude’s played the schlubby bum/scum schtick (I’ll grant you he’s done variations within that subset) since Love Liza.
He took a break to get an Oscar by acting retarded in Capote… but that’s it.
on Aug 26 2008 @ 4:45 pm 20. Fletch said …
Maurice, RE Brad Pitt…I say Snatch. How say you?
on Aug 27 2008 @ 12:33 am 21. maurice said …
Fox- never ever. And not just because of the Oscar. Her film credits read like the “What Club I Joined” list in the yearbook of my Senior class. You want to watch a painful and pathetic role, I offer “Any Given Sunday.” Seeing her on the screen with Pacino was akin to watching a puppy chew glass. Last time I saw a beating like that, the crowd was yelling “Bomaye” at the ringside. I will apologize to her when she apologizes for “Very Bad Things.”
Fletch- Sure. Throw “Kalifornia” and “Babel” in there as well. Fine film’s and good acting. I will counter with “Legends of the Fall ” and “Meet Joe Black.” By the way, the longest movie I ever saw I had to re-title. It is now called “Seven Years In My Seat.”
on Aug 29 2008 @ 5:36 pm 22. Evan Derrick said …
I’m still kind of amazed that this post has 21 (now 22) comments on it.
on Aug 29 2008 @ 7:38 pm 23. Luke Harrington said …
To be fair, a lot of those comments weren’t about the movie.