This was, I think, the longest 90 minutes of my life. The skydiving Elvises were entertaining though.

I liked Honeymoon in Vegas, although I can't imagine that I would ever care to see it again. Maybe even saying that I "liked" it is too much, since in actuality it's probably more honest to say that I didn't not like it. And I have to w... (read more) I liked Honeymoon in Vegas, although I can't imagine that I would ever care to see it again. Maybe even saying that I "liked" it is too much, since in actuality it's probably more honest to say that I didn't not like it. And I have to wonder: if I didn't have this peculiar obsession with Nicolas Cage, or if the movie had a different star... would I have cared at all?

The movie wants to be a slapstick comedy and a touching love story and fails on both counts. It's about a guy named Jack Singer (Cage), who is a New York private eye who documents affairs. One guy comes in claiming that his plain-jane wife is cheating on him with Mike Tyson. Is that funny? Am I missing something?
In an early moment, Jack is with his mother on her deathbed and hastily promises her that he will never get married. Cut to three years later: Jack is dating a girl who he loves (Parker) and when the fire seems to be dying from their relationship, the obvious answer to get the spark back is... yep, marriage. So they fly to Las Vegas in order to elope. But before they tie the knot, Jack enters a poker game with the crafty Tommy Korman (Caan), loses $65,000 in the game, and in order to satisfy his gambling debts, agrees to lend Korman his soon-to-be bride for the weekend.

That plot is ridiculous. But, you know, maybe it can work - if you play it right. The worst sin of Honeymoon in Vegas is in terrible pacing. The movie cuts to the next scene so quickly, you start to wonder what exactly its hurry is. So a lot of the film seems rushed, and consequently important things like the time when Jack has to explain to his girlfriend that he has to loan her to a gambler for the weekend lose a lot of their punch. They share a small argument before she amazingly agrees, and before long Korman and Singer's girlfriend are off on a plane to Hawaii. Really? Sorry to interrupt the movie with a reality check, but why would Parker's character agree to go to Hawaii with this man - not only because of the fact that it wasn't part of the deal and because he might try to attack or abuse her there, but even more simply: because the trip will last longer than the weekend. Nobody even raises that point.

So then it's a battle of wills, as Singer realizes he's been duped and has to go to Hawaii to save the love of his life. Or, I mean, we assume that she's the love of his life because they were going to get married, even though their relationship was in a rut. Meanwhile, Korman is getting his henchmen to throw wrenches in Jack's plans, ostensibly so he can spend more time with Parker.
Things start getting weird, and not in a good way. Jack gets diverted to Peter Boyle's house, playing some kind of brain-dead guy who loves the theater. The scene exists solely so that writer/director Andrew Bergman can make fun of Marlon Brando. Korman, who until this point seemed to be genuinely interested in Parker - assuring her that it wasn't just because she looks like his dead wife - suddenly becomes a deranged, violent psychopath. Ta-da! Now Parker doesn't have to choose between the two guys, since one is definitively evil and one is definitely good. Thank god for easy moral choices.

The movie ends in a spectacular fashion which, if you don't know about it, I will not ruin for you. It is a pretty interesting finale, but it rings false. It's just too convenient, too perfect, too easy for the characters to accept what has happened without much thought. Maybe it goes back to the fact that the movie feels like it has a bus to catch in an hour and a half and if it runs a minute longer, it's gonna miss it.

So, that's that. I didn't dislike Honeymoon in Vegas, but I don't know that I liked it either. Maybe if I was in a different mood, the unbelievable plot-line wouldn't have bothered me as much, how everybody just accepted what was going on without any hesitation. I don't know. I just know that I didn't really feel anything while watching this film, and since the movie's objectives are to either make you laugh or warm your heart, it didn't accomplish either goal. So. That's that.

Some good laughs. Caan is perfect as the sleazeball and Cage convincingly desperate.

This is a bad movie. Bad.

I just watched it again. It's a charming movie. I just adore Nicholas Cage so of course I would rate it high. :-)

Guilty pleasure # 46
(Ed. Note: most of these are from when I was younger than 14)