Shortcut to Happiness

The story behind this film is much more interesting than the movie itself. It seems that production of the film stopped before the final product could be released. According to Wikipedia, the project ran out of money AND some of the investors were being investigated for bank fraud! I have no idea of the outcome of the legal matters, but the movie sat on the shelf for several years. Ultimately, it was sold through an auction and the buyers edited the film themselves...without the film's director, Alec Baldwin. As a result, Baldwin demanded his name be taken off as director...which seems more than understandable. Then, when the film was ultimately released, it lost money.

The story is a modern interpretation of the old story "The Devil and Daniel Webster" (1941). However, it also goes by the title "Shortcut to Happiness".

The story is about Jabez (Baldwin), a frustrated writer sho has had no success with his work. He's about to give up when he receives a visit from the Devil (Jennifer Love Hewitt). She offers to make him famous if he sells her his soul...which he does. However, despite huge immediate success, the deal doesn't make him happy in any way. In fact, in some ways it makes his life worse. So, in desperation, he gets the book agent, Daniel Webster (Anthony Hopkins) to represent him in a court made up of famous dead authors to argue that the deal is null and void.

The story ISN'T bad. Considering how it was made, it's actually very surprising it's even watchable. But there are a few problems. First, the 1941 film is much better. Second, while I am sure Hewitt is a lovely person, she seemed all wrong for her role. Third, the film is just flat...watchable but flat.

Years ago I first learned of this movie, as well as its troubled production and reportedly bad quality. Of course, that made me want to see it, but I couldn't find it anywhere until I came across it by accident on Amazon Prime Video. Well, does the movie show tell-tale signs of behind the scenes troubles, and is it a really bad movie? Yes and yes. There are many things wrong with this movie, such as the flat or downright awful performances by the cast, the fact that it's obvious that linking footage or entire scenes are missing, the pacing is extremely slow, and the fact that telling this classic story in a modern setting brings no new perspective or angles. However, what really bothered me most about the movie was that the movie never finds a clear tone and sticks with it. As it is, the movie is too goofy to be taken seriously, but somehow also too serious to make the comic touches amusing. The results are that I was not quite sure how to take this story.... apart from it being done in a really bad manner. While I'll admit some of the blame for the movie's failure doesn't fall on director/actor Alec Baldwin's shoulders - he claimed that the movie was taken out of his hands and butchered by others - there are no real signs that his intended version would have been that much better. In short, the movie is a really strange change of genre for prolific schlockmeister producers Randall Emmett and George Furla. But not strange enough to really catch the interest of the select few who sometimes get a kick out of big budget cinematic misfires.

One of the reviews says there were three versions of the film. I'd like to see Baldwin's original cut of this movie. The last version was cut badly, there are many unnatural breaks in the film. like it was edited for commercial breaks. The breaks where scenes were cut seem apparent.

Apparently the 1941 movie suffered a similar fate, with many titles and severe editing.

The story runs counter to the traditional American ethic of money equaling happiness.

The film was purchased out of bankruptcy for a fraction of production costs, and renamed and hacked for a fast return on investment.

As a teacher of fifty years experience in language and cinematic arts,I taught "The Devil and Dan'l Webster" as part of the fictional pantheon of American Literature. Although Alec Baldwin certainly has burned some bridges along the way in his career, this film takes creative risks, many of them worthy of consideration, which exemplify a significant part of Americana. Like its forbear, the 1941 cinematic adaptation starring Walter Huston, this version was attacked, condemned and dismissed when it was released. I believe that every adaptation of any book is an aesthetic fossil caught in cinematic amber.

The movie substantiates the same sort of meretricious value system in its depiction of Jabez Stone that struck Stephen Vincent Benet and the makers of the 1941 gem. In its lampooning of pretentious high society panderers of cheesy albeit popular writing, casting them as best-sellers, "Shortcut to Happiness"dramatizes a contemporary examination of what actually constitutes success in the dizzying world of publications.

Anthony Hopkins was well cast in the role of Daniel Webster. It is instructive to compare and contrast Edward Arnold's portrayal of Webster in the 1941 classic with that of Hopkins, because both actors have earned a lifetime of accolades, portraying both admirable and despicable characters. Hopkins and Arnold remain symbols of financial and thespian success.

Hollywood has a bad record for disapproving of movies solely on the basis of profit. I would love to see "Shortcut to Happiness" go into post-production, be subjected to a diverse array of test audiences after a skillful rewrite. The issues that concerned Stephen Vincent Benet in 1937 are alive and with us all today in almost every area of business, politics, entertainment, and government. Success is whatever you can get away with.

Audiences will go to see bad movies. But Hollywood only seems to take the loving and meticulously-artistic care to produce two or three cinematic gems each year. Whoever had the final say in terms of condemning this movie wasted time, money, and the potential for achieving what its creators had in mind when the idea was but an inspiration culled from reading the classic and wishing to update it.

If one of my students had submitted this movie script to me, I would have said, "Promising rough draft," and suggest various ways to improve it with my reasons for doing so.

This is yet another Faustian tale put to celluloid, though unlike both versions of Bedazzled, it's not exactly a comedy, more a dramedy, only funny in parts. Both Baldwin and Hopkins are fine in their roles, but unfortunately Jennifer Love Hewitt is completely out of her depth, especially when sharing the screen with Hopkins.it's a okay plot that will keep you entertained, though nothing more.