Atajo a la felicidad

This is one of those films that I remember being in the can for years before anything happening w/it. I don't think it's terrible, but it's not really good either. Alec Baldwin was pretty good, but the plot is it kind of flimsy at best. The cast is pretty good in what they're given, but again you are only as good as the script. Baldwin directing this although I could have sworn he didn't direct all of it, I thought I read somewhere or lots of re-shoots wasn't bad but he definitely has some potential in there. Although his work on "30 Rock" is nothing short of genius & should keep him busy for a little while longer. I just hope the show bows out gracefully a la Seinfeld, but maybe not even that long. 9 years it went. So if you want to see a film that you won't get much from, but won't really hate either well this is for you. I can't remember the last time a film had been wrapped so long before finally being released & only on DVD at that. It was nice to see Alec Baldwin & Anthony Hopkins again together since their excellent yet not much people have seen "The Edge." Now pick up that excellent film for some real entertainment.

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.

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.

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.