Eric D. Snider

What Happens in Vegas

Movie Review

"What Happens in Vegas"

Review by Eric D. Snider

Grade: C

Rating: PG-13

Released: Friday, May 9, 2008

Directed by:

Cast:

This week's New York-based romantic comedy in which two sworn enemies fall in love after being forced to work on something together is "What Happens in Vegas." The film is mechanical and obvious ("comfortable and familiar," a more optimistic critic might say), complete with a leading man named Jack. Jack is what you call your leading man when you don't feel like coming up with a better name for him. When you buy screenplay-writing software, the leading man is named Jack by default, and it remains that way unless you change it.

This Jack (Ashton Kutcher) is a devil-may-care twentysomething who's just been fired by his own father (Treat Williams) for being lazy and unreliable. The film tells us that Jack is useless more it shows us; I guess casting Ashton Kutcher in the role means half the work of establishing the character has already been done.

Likewise, there is Joy, a Type-A over-planner who's played by Cameron Diaz in no-nonsense mode. Joy is a stock broker who's just been dumped by her boyfriend (Jason Sudeikis) for sucking all the fun out of his life. Joy and her friend Tipper (Lake Bell) go to Vegas to recuperate, while Jack and his friend Hater (Rob Corddry) do the same. The two couples are accidentally assigned to the same room -- such kooky hilarity! -- and sparks fly.

A night of drinking ensues, and the next morning Jack and Joy discover that they somehow got married. They agree to an annulment -- but then Jack puts Joy's quarter in a slot machine, wins $3 million, and now there's a dispute over whose money it is. A judge (Dennis Miller) back in New York refuses to grant them their annulment on grounds that are shaky from both a legal standpoint and a storytelling standpoint. He orders them to stay married for six months, see a marriage counselor (Queen Latifah) to prove they're really trying to make it work, and then we'll see about a divorce. Why? I dunno. Because there wouldn't be a movie otherwise, I guess. Personally, I think it would take a constitutional amendment to get me to stay married to Cameron Diaz.

None of this setup makes a bit of sense, obviously. We have not evolved much from the old days, when a madcap farce would simply handcuff two characters together, or when a crazy person's last will and testament would require someone to get married in 24 hours, or sleep in a haunted house.

Anyway, Jack and Joy must share Jack's apartment. She is appalled by his slovenliness and his odors; he refuses to change a single thing about himself and even goes out of his way to torment her. They both try to get the other spouse to commit adultery, which would violate the court order. There's plenty of juvenile one-upsmanship. Jack gets hit in the crotch a lot. So it goes.

In the end, Jack learns to be more grown-up. Joy also admits that she hates being a stock broker. Jack seems to know his about her, even though the movie never even hinted at it. (Maybe it meant to but forgot.) And speaking of forgetting to mention things, Jack's friend's name is never mentioned. Then, late in the film, he ignores a cell phone call from "Hater," and we're like, "Who the hell is 'Hater'?" We're not reading the script, folks. You have to TELL us what people's names are.

As is often the case, the secondary couple in this halfhearted effort is much funnier than the primary pair. Tipper and Hater despise each other from the moment they meet, and I think the fact that there's no reason for the hostility is why it's funny. Their random, cruel asides to one another make me laugh ... as does Rob Corddry in general, I guess.

Kutcher and Diaz are likable enough to get a few chuckles here and there, but the generic screenplay by Dana Fox ("The Wedding Date") doesn't give them much to work with. Director Tom Vaughan (of the under-appreciated British comedy "Starter for 10") demonstrates some style in the way he constructs the dizzying debauchery of Vegas, and maybe in one or two of the physical comedy pieces.

This is McDonald's, friends. You know pretty much what you're going to get before you go in. I didn't laugh much, and I never felt even an inkling of "aw, cute!" romance -- but I didn't want to claw my eyes out, either. If that counts as a success in the rom-com business, then I guess "What Happens in Vegas" is a hit.

Grade: C

Rated PG-13, moderate profanity, some vulgarity and sexual innuendo

1 hr., 39 min.

Digg! Stumble It!

This item has 7 comments

  1. Rob D. says:

    Honestly Eric.........sometimes your reviews do not match the grade. I agree with your review, but it sounded like you should give this movie a "D" at best. I don't mind checking my brain at the door at a comedy- if it's funny. This was not funny at all. Rob Corddry is usually funny and was the best part of the movie, but he wasn't even that good with this material. I guess you graded it on a curve because you compared it to "Made of Honor". You must admit, without the curve- this gets a "D".

  2. Eric D. Snider says:

    "I guess you graded it on a curve because you compared it to "Made of Honor". You must admit, without the curve- this gets a "D"."

    No, what I must admit is that apparently if *you* were reviewing it, *you* would give it a D. Movie grading isn't an exact science, but yeah, this one feels like a C to me. The last paragraph, in particular, lays out the reasons why.

    The question is, why is it so hard for some people -- you in particular; I've noticed it in some of your other comments -- to believe that my opinions on a movie are different from theirs? Is it that we agree so often that when we don't, it's unfathomable, and you must search for theories ("Oh, surely he was comparing it to this other movie!") as to how it could have happened?

  3. Rob D. says:

    Well, it's just that a lot of times your reviews don't match the letter grade that you give. I've seen you slam a movie and give it a C+ or B- just because Will Arnett was in it or another actor/actress that is very talented. I mean- even in the last paragraph you admit that you "didn't laugh much". You know that there is no other reason to like this movie, if it's not funny. I can find many reviews of movies you liked better than this that got a lower grade. I might have been too hard on you in the past, but admit I'm right that you didn't give this a grade that matched your review.

  4. Eric D. Snider says:

    Perhaps your problem is in thinking that a C grade means I "liked" the movie. I didn't like it. But I didn't dislike it much, either. Here's what I admit: that if you had written this review, you would have ended it with a D grade. I've reread it, and it reads like a C to me, maybe a C-. Obviously you and I have different ideas about what constitutes a C-level review. Grading systems, in addition to being inexact, are also subjective.

  5. Rob D. says:

    I knew you didn't like it, just thought you almost hated it. I do understand that grading and reviewing isn't an exact science. I'll remember that before I comment the next time. You know I think you're the best reviewer out there. It's just "tough love" when I criticize you.

  6. Russ says:

    Ah, I'll never understand movie critics. :P Not that I'm qualified to be one, see nearly as many movies as you, or put nearly the work into it.

    Personally, I'd never rank anything with Ashton Kutcher in it above Speed Racer.

    Call me prejudiced, but that's how it is.

    I wouldn't rank it anywhere near Prince Caspian, Iron Man, or Crystal Skull either (the other movies that I've seen in the past month).

    But yea, I'm not trying to rerate the movie for you or rate your review, just stating my opinion! I'd say I'm very not objective when it comes to romantic comedies though, naming a single one (that's come out recently/in the past decade) that I'd rate above a D would be hard.

  7. Is says:

    Yeah, well, I'm always behind on movies..Just watched this one..

    So I totally don't understand movie critics...and so I actually liked this one. Now, BEFORE, you judge me...I am female..and I do usually like romatic comedies [No matter how hilariously unrealistic they are. It's part of the appeal, really.].

    I completely agree with your review..but then I actually liked the movie. I know. That made a lot of sense.

    I know it's a bad movie, but I don't go into it expecting something 'good,' and come out satisfied with the appropriate romantic comedy formula the movie uses. Yep.

Add your comment:

The following HTML elements are allowed: <span class="spoiler">content</span>, <strong>, <em>, <a>, and <img>.

Before posting, please read the rules.


Subscription Center

Eric D. Snider's "Snide Remarks"

This is to join the mailing list for Eric's weekly humor column, "Snide Remarks." For more information, go here.

Subscribe

Eric D. Snider's "In the Dark"

This is to join the mailing list for Eric's weekly movie-review e-zine. For more information on it, go here.

Subscribe
 
Come read about baseball and web development at www.jeffjsnider.com