"What Happens in Vegas" Should have Stayed in Vegas

If there's one thing about America that captures the imagination of people outside America more than anything else: more than the Empire State Building more than the Golden Gate Bridge, more than Mickey Mouse, and more than the criminal justice system in America, it is Las Vegas.  In this land I currently reside (the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) where alcohol, gambling, public displays of affection and even dating or banned, I met some young men from Palestine, Jordan, and Syria, and one of them (I believe the Syrian) kept mentioning Vegas.  And even a Buddhist monk I met in South Korea said when she visited America, Las Vegas was her favorite place because the distinction between reality and delusion was nonexistent.

Because I have never been to Vegas myself, my only knowledge of it comes from the things I hear and what I see in popular media such as Vegas Vacation, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and the love film that I am about to review: What Happens in Vegas...

Interestingly, only the first 10 minutes or so of the movie actually takes place in Las Vegas.  The rest of the film is a consequence of Vegas, reminding us that when it comes to getting married, what happens there doesn't always stay there.

Keep it in Vegas, Ashton and Cameron....we don't want to know.

The guy is Jack played by Ashton Kutcher and the girl is Joy played by Cameron Diaz.  Both are privileged in many ways, but at the time they meet, they are are at the brunt of loser-dom.  Jack has just been fired...by his father, and Joy has just been dumped by a fiancee moments before he steps into a surprise birthday she has labored long for him.  The film centers around a divorce settlement involving a 3 million dollar slot machine win, and the judge will not allow the settlement to proceed until the two live together for a period of six months, thus forcing them to bear the consequences of their drunk vowing.

Before I lay into this film, let's acknowledge its merits.  It is interesting to have a romance film start at marriage rather than end there, thus capturing the inevitable period of strife that comes with any conjugal or cohabitating relationship.  Far too many love films seem to go straight from first kiss to wedding to first baby without acknowledging that for many couples at least, these things take time and more often than not, involve personality clashing followed by either reconciliation or relinquishing of the relationship.  In Jack and Joy, we see the reality of so many couples that are not really that compatible yet for whatever reason stay together sometimes at their benefit and other times at their detriment.

However, in this case, the said couple is only doing so (remaining together) for a cash payment at the end.  Notwithstanding the fallacy that someone (much less the recently married person) can actually win three thousand dollars from a slot machine after a few tries, there is the mistaken notion that keeping a marriage together merely requires a trial period after which is a jackpot at the end.

Perhaps, the biggest fallacy in this film is that a relationship can change even if the people in it do not. Before acknowledging the sudden compatibility of their previous incompatibility, the marriage counselor admits that the two have not really begun to manage their deep-seated personal issues.   Moreover, while Jack never does start cleaning up after himself in the bathroom, Joy doesn't confront an issue she has over work/sanity balance.

In fact, she walks away from it, turning down a promotion while saying she would rather be happy doing nothing than be miserable doing something she hated.  Other than the fact that doing nothing is never an option, this statement has some major problems.   One is that it's yet another message to women that happiness cannot be found within one's work but only within a marriage.  Another: even if it were the right call for her to turn down the promotion, it begs the question why don't we have more films of men doing the same thing?

When will a man be considered based on his quality of life and character, rather than on what title has has or how much he makes (or has)?

On that note, I'm giving myself a title: Chief Love Films Blog Operator (CLFBO sounds fairly official, doesn't it?), and welcome anyone else to submit reviews on romance films (good, bad, ugly and/or wild card) for posting here.  But be forewarned:  just like how this film couldn't simply keep Vegas in Vegas, what happens in the blogosphere.....certainly doesn't stay there.

FINAL VERDICT: Not bad...just ugly.

Most awkward part about having no kissing scenes: we have no recollection of what happened in Vegas either.