Shortcut to Happiness (2003)

To me, this movie is perfection.

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

This movie was an utter piece of trash. it only scraped the surface of such a classical topic and one that many people have pondered upon for all eternity. and while at it, not only did it not offer no new points, but i felt it took all seriousness and gravity off it. the characters: underdevelped, the action: sloppy and head-titled. the use of slow motion: childish. an awful movie. the end.

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.

This movie was fun but Jennifer Love Hewitt was so utterly miscast. She's fine for some light TV but she's not a powerful enough actress to play in an ensemble of this caliber. Everyone in it, Kim Catrall, Hopkins, Rubin, Akroyd, and even Baldwin himself are quite wonderful but Ms. Hewitt throws the balance. She's the thing that spoils the movie; especially her delivery of the last "closing argument" monologue belongs in some kind of first year acting class. The movie is a bit moralistic and sentimental and in my opinion it does not live up to the actual story of The Devil and Daniel Webster which is, in many ways more subtle than how Baldwin had handled it. He's gone for a more commercial treatment of a concept whose sophistication could have been just as entertaining. All in all, it's a fun little piece thought some of the sets, the editing as well as the casting of Hewitt should have been rethought. Baldwin is a decent enough director; keeps the film moving and definitely gives the characters good arcs.

I saw this film at the Venice Film Festival and have waited a long time to comment on it as I wanted to see it again when I was released. However, it still has not come out and I don't know if it ever will.Alec Baldwin is a writer, down on his luck and nowhere to go but down even further.As with many viewers I suspect, I was attracted to this film by the cast and the fact that it has received so much press, good and bad. The plot is based on the old casino idea of a writer whose career in next to nil and is getting ready to self destruct – and unless you get into it, it'll feel rather forced and silly at times.However the film helped me to overcome this by being very low key and downbeat – very much like Baldwin himself. The film is not a great thing but one that is easy to get into. The film uses Las Vegas really well but it is a classic story that is fun to believe in. It is much better than the fun, breezy and slick fantasies that we are sold in other films. The mix of romance, comedy and violence works very well – at points it was very touching, at others quite funny.It isn't perfect of course and the writing is where the problems lie; the story did rely on the audience buying into it and at times the dialogue comes very close to corn (but just misses). The only time I felt really let down was the ending, which, although fitting with the spirit of the film, missed a great chance to be fun, exciting and original all at the same time.Still, a good film and definitely worth the watching.