Art Linson's memoirs are a reminder of what a sad place Hollywood really is. We got closer and more original glimpses in films that go from Wilder's "Sunset Boulevard" to Altman's "The Player". Bernard Rose's "Ivansextc" also comes to mind not to mention Blake Edwards's SOB. Here the prototypes are well known even by people who have nothing to do with the film industry so one gets a bit impatient waiting for this fresh look from a prominent, still active, Hollywood producer. No such luck but there are other elements that make the film fun to watch if nothing else. To see Robert De Niro play "a character" that it's not in any way a semi parody of the films that made him famous is a welcome surprise in itself. Barry Levinson shows that he's as sharp as ever and the rhythms that he finds to tell the story keeps the tired tale not only alive but almost gripping.
132 Reviews
I saw what just happened there.
shnizzedy30 October 2008
The film is certainly enjoyable, and has several laugh-out-loud moments. However, like the film within the film, What Just Happened? feels too long. As a filmmaker myself, I really enjoyed this film, but I am afraid that much of the appeal will be missing in a general audience. A producer trying to change Bruce Willis' mind is pretty funny, but how funny is it to a non-producer or a non-Bruce-Willis? The performances, are, of course, outstanding. The entire cast is composed of nearly uncriticizable actors who are superb in any role they attempt. If you have an interest in how films come to be, this is a fun little flick. If you don't care about the behind-the-scenes, you may want to sit this one out.
entertaining but missed the mark
moviefan81694 April 2008
I just got back from an AFI screening of Barry Levinson's satirical comedy, "What Just Happened?", an inside look into the movie business and big studio politics. Robert De Niro was in attendance along with director Barry Levinson and screenwriter Art Linson. Although I tried to get a photo of De Niro, sadly, I was never close enough to get a good shot.
Based on producer Art Linson's book, "What Just Happened? Bitter Hollywood Tales from the Front Line", the film version tells the story of a successful Hollywood producer, Ben, played by Robert Deniro, as he juggles his personal and professional crises. This film has an impressive cast including Robin Wright Penn as Ben's second wife, Kelly; John Turturro as Dick, the stereotypical shifty agent; Stanley Tucci as Scott, the blocked screenplay writer; Michael Wincott as Jeremy, the temperamental director; Catherine Keener, as Lou, the hardcore studio exec; Bruce Willis as the demanding movie star; and Sean Penn as himself.
This mildly funny expose of modern-day Hollywood, was entertaining, but a little disappointing. The message is supposed to shock and outrage the viewer about how the film industry ruins art by turning it into pure commerce. But there have been plenty of Hollywood satires like "The Player" that have done this genre better. Although the source of the material is authentic and despite an outstanding cast (who all give great performances), "What Just Happened?" ultimately has nothing new to say besides the fact that Hollywood is a devious place to work. As a gimmicky farce, it works, but as a satire it was a limp and familiar insider's movie that lacked sharp irony, humor and novel characters.
This film won't appeal to everyone, but it does have some good one liners and funny moments. However, the combination of these actors working together in a comedy may be worth the cost of admission alone.
Based on producer Art Linson's book, "What Just Happened? Bitter Hollywood Tales from the Front Line", the film version tells the story of a successful Hollywood producer, Ben, played by Robert Deniro, as he juggles his personal and professional crises. This film has an impressive cast including Robin Wright Penn as Ben's second wife, Kelly; John Turturro as Dick, the stereotypical shifty agent; Stanley Tucci as Scott, the blocked screenplay writer; Michael Wincott as Jeremy, the temperamental director; Catherine Keener, as Lou, the hardcore studio exec; Bruce Willis as the demanding movie star; and Sean Penn as himself.
This mildly funny expose of modern-day Hollywood, was entertaining, but a little disappointing. The message is supposed to shock and outrage the viewer about how the film industry ruins art by turning it into pure commerce. But there have been plenty of Hollywood satires like "The Player" that have done this genre better. Although the source of the material is authentic and despite an outstanding cast (who all give great performances), "What Just Happened?" ultimately has nothing new to say besides the fact that Hollywood is a devious place to work. As a gimmicky farce, it works, but as a satire it was a limp and familiar insider's movie that lacked sharp irony, humor and novel characters.
This film won't appeal to everyone, but it does have some good one liners and funny moments. However, the combination of these actors working together in a comedy may be worth the cost of admission alone.
Too Boring
Michael_Elliott9 March 2009
What Just Happened (2008)
** (out of 4)
Disappointing adaptation of Art Linson's book about a major Hollywood producer (Robert DeNiro) who finds his world both personally and professionally falling apart in the matter of one week. His latest finished film has the director butting heads with the studio over the ending and his upcoming picture is on the rocks because its star Bruce Willis wants to have a beard. The producer then finds out that his ex-wife (Robin Wright Penn) might be having an affair with his screenwriter (Stanley Tucci). You know, if you're going to make a satire about Hollywood then it might be a good idea to put in some humor. If you're going to make a hard edged film about Hollywood then it might be a good idea to put in some edge. This film comes off as a major disappointment considering the source material, the director and the all-star cast they lined up to do the film. Not only do we get DeNiro turning in a very good performance but we get a fun cameo by Sean Penn as well as nice supporting work by Tucci, Penn and John Turturro. The main reason for folks to see this picture would be for the performance by DeNiro who after years of so-so work actually manages to pull off a pretty good comeback. It's just a shame to see it wasted in such a bland movie. I think every bit of the blame has to be thrown at Levinson and the screenplay. It's clear the director and writer had something to say about Hollywood but they rarely ever say anything. I was really shocked at how few laughs the movie had and it wasn't because they went for them and missed but instead they simply didn't go for them. We really don't get any major incites into Hollywood that we haven't seen before and the movie never really takes any punches either. There's the whole subplot about a director having his vision taken away by the studio yet the movie isn't critical of the studio. This movie really isn't critical about anything so in the end you have to wonder what the whole point was to begin with.
** (out of 4)
Disappointing adaptation of Art Linson's book about a major Hollywood producer (Robert DeNiro) who finds his world both personally and professionally falling apart in the matter of one week. His latest finished film has the director butting heads with the studio over the ending and his upcoming picture is on the rocks because its star Bruce Willis wants to have a beard. The producer then finds out that his ex-wife (Robin Wright Penn) might be having an affair with his screenwriter (Stanley Tucci). You know, if you're going to make a satire about Hollywood then it might be a good idea to put in some humor. If you're going to make a hard edged film about Hollywood then it might be a good idea to put in some edge. This film comes off as a major disappointment considering the source material, the director and the all-star cast they lined up to do the film. Not only do we get DeNiro turning in a very good performance but we get a fun cameo by Sean Penn as well as nice supporting work by Tucci, Penn and John Turturro. The main reason for folks to see this picture would be for the performance by DeNiro who after years of so-so work actually manages to pull off a pretty good comeback. It's just a shame to see it wasted in such a bland movie. I think every bit of the blame has to be thrown at Levinson and the screenplay. It's clear the director and writer had something to say about Hollywood but they rarely ever say anything. I was really shocked at how few laughs the movie had and it wasn't because they went for them and missed but instead they simply didn't go for them. We really don't get any major incites into Hollywood that we haven't seen before and the movie never really takes any punches either. There's the whole subplot about a director having his vision taken away by the studio yet the movie isn't critical of the studio. This movie really isn't critical about anything so in the end you have to wonder what the whole point was to begin with.
Probable joy of recognition for movie makers, but rather uninviting to me
BeneCumb11 March 2013
I am rather frequent movie viewer, but my knowledge of creation and completion process is rather vague and I am seldom interested in related intrigues, picking of the cast etc. What Just Happened caught my attention due to the cast, and they performed their tasks well (in spite of often unfinished characters): Robert De Niro, Sean Penn, Bruce Willis, John Turturro, Stanley Tucci are excellent character actors always pleasant to watch.
The plot, however, had only a few funny/witty moments, and the events became confused at times. Moreover, the creation of something with lots of people and money involved are always followed by contrary opinions, putting pressure, testing, constant modifications etc. - and is it really necessary to depict them even in a mild satirical manner? Alternately, one could really "spin" the events and create a crazy British type of a comedy. Alas, the movie in question did not have those elements and the outcome was mediocre for me - apart from the performances, as stated above.
The plot, however, had only a few funny/witty moments, and the events became confused at times. Moreover, the creation of something with lots of people and money involved are always followed by contrary opinions, putting pressure, testing, constant modifications etc. - and is it really necessary to depict them even in a mild satirical manner? Alternately, one could really "spin" the events and create a crazy British type of a comedy. Alas, the movie in question did not have those elements and the outcome was mediocre for me - apart from the performances, as stated above.
Did anything?
Chris Knipp20 October 2008
In this Hollywood industry in-joke movie by Barry Levinson, Robert De Niro is Ben, a producer who day after day (as on screen datelines inform us) just keeps having to face the same few "big" problems, rolling back in his face every morning in a bunch like Sisyphus' rock. The essence of the joke is that the rock is papier-mâché; it's all blown-up trifles. But the trouble with making this movie fly is these magnified pin-pricks may not be either important enough or funny enough to engage the audience.
Ben's ex-wife Kelly (Robin Wright Penn), who now occupies the big house they used to share with their two little kids, doesn't want to get back together with him; why should she? Now at the bottom rung of the thirty "top" producers to be photographed and featured in 'New York Magazine,' eventually placed far in the background at the photo shoot, these days he's been reduced to a foundering drone. He's had a string of flops. Now one of his directors, an eccentric Aussie with nail polish, spiky hair, and substance abuse issues called Jeremy Brunell (Michael Wincott), has just ended a new film in a singularly repulsive way involving Sean Penn, multiple bullet wounds, and a little white dog; and, being a classic dysfunctional prima donna, Mr. Brunell staunchly refuses to edit it, going into a psychological meltdown, despite a horrible test audience response and strenuous objections from the studio head, Lou Tarnow, impersonated by Catherine Keener. An upcoming film will star Bruce Willis, but Willis, hired because he is sexy, has grown a paunch and a "Grizzly Adams beard." Willis, as himself, not only refuses to shave off the beard, but throws a big tantrum when asked to do so. Ben hounds Willis' current agent, Dick Bell (John Turturro), to put the pressure on him. The movie will be cancelled if the beard doesn't come off. But Dick Bell is a prima donna too, a dandy dresser with a flashy nervous stomach and a tendency to collapse, screaming in pain, at the most inopportune moments. How can he dare to antagonize Bruce Willis, his most important client? Big fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite them. And little fleas have littler fleas, and so add infinitum.
Should we laugh or cry? It's often hard to know, and some of the most climactic scenes are more than anything irritating unless you enjoy watching human train wrecks. The overriding emotion evoked is a bemused schadenfreude.
Somehow it seems the late Robert Altman already did this picture when he made 'The Player;' and the ways that film's obviously different all seem like better choices. Altman succeeded enormously more by realizing that for the audience just spotting a lot of movie celebrities would be half the fun. This is how the public shares a Hollywood in-joke movie, peering in hungrily from outside--but Levinson misses out on a lot of that kind of innocent entertainment value by latching so tenaciously onto the tunnel-vision p.o.v. of insider Ben, and anyway 'What Just Happened?' is more angst-ridden than laughter-filled, even if Ben's pain is muted. The movie is never really helped by its focus on the heavy, imploding De Niro. Obviously the man has great authority, but of late years he's too often thrown it away in a series of bad comedies unsuited to his original talents for intense roles tending toward the criminal--disspiriting productions like 'Meet the Parents' or 'Meet the Fockers,' and he's out of place as a struggler trumped by Keener's toughness, Willis' macho bluster, even Turturro's unconvincing tics. Everything he has going for himself, all his power, menace, and rage, is repressed in this movie.
A lot of Hollywood people are from somewhere else, and just as De Niro has excelled in East Coast stuff about Italian Americans, Levin's best, truest, and incidentally funniest movies were set in his native Baltimore. Of course Levinson directed De Niro in a successful movie not set in either the Big Apple or Charm City--but the political satire 'Wag the Dog' had some powerful points to make, whereas this effort's message is as muted as De Niro's line deliveries. If it's that producing movies is a risky game, we kind of knew that. If it was that De Niro and Levinson both seem past their prime lately, alas, we knew that too.
As recognition-celebrities other actors in the movie are not wasted, but interchangeable. It's almost incidental here whether it's Bruce Willis or somebody else, and all Sean Penn does is pose at Cannes (where he was anyway, working as head of the jury) and roll down a hill and die in the dysfunctional Aussie's bum movie. There are lots of subsidiary characters since everybody has a secretary or an assistant, if not dozens of them. Willis has a good suspenseful moment with the beard. Robin Wright Penn gets in some good licks. The Jewish funeral for a suicide of Ben's profession--more uneasy schadenfreude, this time for him--gives Willis another funny moment, mostly stolen from Dr. Hunter S. Thompson. But it's too tempting to reply to the question 'What's just happened?' with 'Who cares?'
Ben's ex-wife Kelly (Robin Wright Penn), who now occupies the big house they used to share with their two little kids, doesn't want to get back together with him; why should she? Now at the bottom rung of the thirty "top" producers to be photographed and featured in 'New York Magazine,' eventually placed far in the background at the photo shoot, these days he's been reduced to a foundering drone. He's had a string of flops. Now one of his directors, an eccentric Aussie with nail polish, spiky hair, and substance abuse issues called Jeremy Brunell (Michael Wincott), has just ended a new film in a singularly repulsive way involving Sean Penn, multiple bullet wounds, and a little white dog; and, being a classic dysfunctional prima donna, Mr. Brunell staunchly refuses to edit it, going into a psychological meltdown, despite a horrible test audience response and strenuous objections from the studio head, Lou Tarnow, impersonated by Catherine Keener. An upcoming film will star Bruce Willis, but Willis, hired because he is sexy, has grown a paunch and a "Grizzly Adams beard." Willis, as himself, not only refuses to shave off the beard, but throws a big tantrum when asked to do so. Ben hounds Willis' current agent, Dick Bell (John Turturro), to put the pressure on him. The movie will be cancelled if the beard doesn't come off. But Dick Bell is a prima donna too, a dandy dresser with a flashy nervous stomach and a tendency to collapse, screaming in pain, at the most inopportune moments. How can he dare to antagonize Bruce Willis, his most important client? Big fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite them. And little fleas have littler fleas, and so add infinitum.
Should we laugh or cry? It's often hard to know, and some of the most climactic scenes are more than anything irritating unless you enjoy watching human train wrecks. The overriding emotion evoked is a bemused schadenfreude.
Somehow it seems the late Robert Altman already did this picture when he made 'The Player;' and the ways that film's obviously different all seem like better choices. Altman succeeded enormously more by realizing that for the audience just spotting a lot of movie celebrities would be half the fun. This is how the public shares a Hollywood in-joke movie, peering in hungrily from outside--but Levinson misses out on a lot of that kind of innocent entertainment value by latching so tenaciously onto the tunnel-vision p.o.v. of insider Ben, and anyway 'What Just Happened?' is more angst-ridden than laughter-filled, even if Ben's pain is muted. The movie is never really helped by its focus on the heavy, imploding De Niro. Obviously the man has great authority, but of late years he's too often thrown it away in a series of bad comedies unsuited to his original talents for intense roles tending toward the criminal--disspiriting productions like 'Meet the Parents' or 'Meet the Fockers,' and he's out of place as a struggler trumped by Keener's toughness, Willis' macho bluster, even Turturro's unconvincing tics. Everything he has going for himself, all his power, menace, and rage, is repressed in this movie.
A lot of Hollywood people are from somewhere else, and just as De Niro has excelled in East Coast stuff about Italian Americans, Levin's best, truest, and incidentally funniest movies were set in his native Baltimore. Of course Levinson directed De Niro in a successful movie not set in either the Big Apple or Charm City--but the political satire 'Wag the Dog' had some powerful points to make, whereas this effort's message is as muted as De Niro's line deliveries. If it's that producing movies is a risky game, we kind of knew that. If it was that De Niro and Levinson both seem past their prime lately, alas, we knew that too.
As recognition-celebrities other actors in the movie are not wasted, but interchangeable. It's almost incidental here whether it's Bruce Willis or somebody else, and all Sean Penn does is pose at Cannes (where he was anyway, working as head of the jury) and roll down a hill and die in the dysfunctional Aussie's bum movie. There are lots of subsidiary characters since everybody has a secretary or an assistant, if not dozens of them. Willis has a good suspenseful moment with the beard. Robin Wright Penn gets in some good licks. The Jewish funeral for a suicide of Ben's profession--more uneasy schadenfreude, this time for him--gives Willis another funny moment, mostly stolen from Dr. Hunter S. Thompson. But it's too tempting to reply to the question 'What's just happened?' with 'Who cares?'
satire not funny enough
SnoopyStyle1 June 2016
Ben (Robert De Niro) is a Hollywood producer struggling to stay on top. His film Fiercely has a horrendous test screening with an ending of the villains shooting the dog in the head. Director Jeremy Brunell (Michael Wincott) insists on keeping it but studio exec Lou Tarnow (Catherine Keener) forces him to cut it or she pulls it from Cannes. Ben's latest movie is threatened with a shutdown unless he can get Bruce Willis to shave his beard. He has two ex-wives. He's jealous of the recent ex-wife Kelly (Robin Wright) who may have a new lover. Zoe (Kristen Stewart) is the daughter from his first marriage.
Robert De Niro is being too serious. There are times when the story has good satire. It either doesn't take it far enough or De Niro gives it too much gravitas. It becomes a series of tired ugly unfunny situations. This is probably funnier on the page than on the screen.
Robert De Niro is being too serious. There are times when the story has good satire. It either doesn't take it far enough or De Niro gives it too much gravitas. It becomes a series of tired ugly unfunny situations. This is probably funnier on the page than on the screen.
Is this an inside joke
Tak0057 April 2019
Effectively this seems to be a movie about the trials and tribulations of making a film. After a while you begin to feel that you are watching an inside joke that only those in the movie industry should get and the rest of us should just smile at the odd comical moment. Though in the end you realise people are being paid multi million dollars and living the high life for doing not a lot of work. So perhaps contrary to the films intentions, we see the industry for what it is, rather than being the victim of an inside joke. Aside from that it's not a bad story, but it's not a comedy or a drama. I don't think it knows what it is
A producer's nightmare
p-stepien18 March 2010
Ben (Robert De Niro) is a top Hollywood producer during a down-period in his career and personal life. He is in separation with his second wife, who in turn is having sex with his good friend. Businesswise he latest movie is a possible turd (artistic, but too depressing) and the studio is forcing him to cut the dramatic negative ending. Additionally his new movie has hit an unexpected rock, when Bruce Willis shows up with a beard fit for a king. And he does not want to shave it off...
This self-flagellation of a movie is a producer's nightmare. Its the theme of the movie as well as the movie itself. It's essentially not funny as a comedy, uninteresting as a drama about Hollywood and swaggers slowly to its conclusion. If this is anything to go by - Hollywood may be devoid of morality, but it is also an extremely boring place.
A sub-par movie from Barry Levinson, which lacks any heart. A movie only for Hollywood producers, who could possibly relate to the story. Well.. that's not a movie that has a big target audience...
This self-flagellation of a movie is a producer's nightmare. Its the theme of the movie as well as the movie itself. It's essentially not funny as a comedy, uninteresting as a drama about Hollywood and swaggers slowly to its conclusion. If this is anything to go by - Hollywood may be devoid of morality, but it is also an extremely boring place.
A sub-par movie from Barry Levinson, which lacks any heart. A movie only for Hollywood producers, who could possibly relate to the story. Well.. that's not a movie that has a big target audience...
So close, yet so far.
niamh-941 August 2011
I really felt like the film was attempting to make an impact, attempting to make a point. Sadly however, it was only an attempt, and a fruitless one at that. Reading the cast list, you'd have thought it would be a gem, and as much as I think De Niro was good, he wasn't at his best.
I think, ironically, the main failing in this film was that the producers and director didn't have the guts to make it work. The weren't bold enough, honest enough or original enough to get it to where it needed to be.
Perhaps there was an element of high expectation when I sat down to watch it one rainy afternoon, and thus maybe that is why I have been left yearning for something more from it, but yet again, I see Stanley Tucci, a fine actor, a real talent, and an under appreciated one at that, in a mediocre film.
I think, ironically, the main failing in this film was that the producers and director didn't have the guts to make it work. The weren't bold enough, honest enough or original enough to get it to where it needed to be.
Perhaps there was an element of high expectation when I sat down to watch it one rainy afternoon, and thus maybe that is why I have been left yearning for something more from it, but yet again, I see Stanley Tucci, a fine actor, a real talent, and an under appreciated one at that, in a mediocre film.
This is really a bore...
vampiremeg20 September 2009
This is just pointless...
I have no idea what they really wanted to say...some Hollywood inside truth? Yeah, I knew that pretty clear, because this is not the first film that discussed that! Worse is that it seems that the actors did not know that it could be so boring...Come on, don't tell me they liked the script...
Robert De Niro himself looked quite "bored" in the film, and I couldn't help but wonder whether he just got disappointed in the midway of making it...His performance was so...plain, that you cannot give any serious comment on it...
Anyway, I do not know what this film is actually trying to convey, but I as a common audience were obviously ignored when it started to tell a story.
I have no idea what they really wanted to say...some Hollywood inside truth? Yeah, I knew that pretty clear, because this is not the first film that discussed that! Worse is that it seems that the actors did not know that it could be so boring...Come on, don't tell me they liked the script...
Robert De Niro himself looked quite "bored" in the film, and I couldn't help but wonder whether he just got disappointed in the midway of making it...His performance was so...plain, that you cannot give any serious comment on it...
Anyway, I do not know what this film is actually trying to convey, but I as a common audience were obviously ignored when it started to tell a story.
Unexpected gem
eli_down18 February 2009
When I read some of the other users' comments I could hardly believe we watched the same movie. Wasted 2 hrs of my life!? This is, simply put, ridiculous, this movie does not require moral or surprise, it is quite enjoyable and powerful as it is.
Superb acting, intelligent writing, characters you can sympathize with as well as good steady rhythm.
It is a beautiful movie centered around a producer and how his life evolves around a series of regular down to earth events. It is a little like entourage minus the girls and absurdity as it is centered around Hollywood but you do sympathize with the lead character a lot on his reactions to events.
I had no expectations from this movie and it turned out to be quite a gem, I believe this is one of those movies that will be rated more highly in the future. If there was any hype around this, if people expected a blockbuster, well it is their fault. It is more like an independent movie and a very good one at that I must add.
It certainly feels like De Niro very much enjoyed acting in this one, this is by far the best I have seen him in years. Turturro, Wincott, Penn Willis all saw something in this script and they were right. ( To be honest with you Turturro did overdo his part a little)
I have been to much more boring movies than this and they were rated much higher by IMDb crowd, no it does not move at a snail's pace, no there are no big psychological dramas or a big story, and yet all those are OK and their absence is what makes this movie perfect.
Superb acting, intelligent writing, characters you can sympathize with as well as good steady rhythm.
It is a beautiful movie centered around a producer and how his life evolves around a series of regular down to earth events. It is a little like entourage minus the girls and absurdity as it is centered around Hollywood but you do sympathize with the lead character a lot on his reactions to events.
I had no expectations from this movie and it turned out to be quite a gem, I believe this is one of those movies that will be rated more highly in the future. If there was any hype around this, if people expected a blockbuster, well it is their fault. It is more like an independent movie and a very good one at that I must add.
It certainly feels like De Niro very much enjoyed acting in this one, this is by far the best I have seen him in years. Turturro, Wincott, Penn Willis all saw something in this script and they were right. ( To be honest with you Turturro did overdo his part a little)
I have been to much more boring movies than this and they were rated much higher by IMDb crowd, no it does not move at a snail's pace, no there are no big psychological dramas or a big story, and yet all those are OK and their absence is what makes this movie perfect.
A Film About Hollywood Insiders Made For Hollywood Insiders
filmbuff19746 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Hollywood is a culture of extreme narcissism. A film exploring the Hollywood culture of extreme narcissism is going to produce a movie about characters who are extremely narcissistic. Now, hopefully this was done deliberately, in which case "What Just Happened" is a work of genius and honesty. If the filmmakers are not aware that most of America do not like characters like the ones in this movie, then it is just another demonstration of Hollywood's culture of narcissism.
I was trying to figure out why I felt so defensive watching this movie and it was more than just the self-absorbed characters. "What Just Happened" is a movie about Hollywood insiders made for the enjoyment of Hollywood insiders. No effort at all was made to let outsiders in on the joke. At a dinner party this would be rather rude! One could get much of the humor, but only if they scoured the industry media such as "Variety" and "The Hollywood Reporter ". Other than that, the average viewer is completely out of the loop! I could not bring myself to like one single character in this movie.
The worst part is that movies like this, at the least, usually show Los Angeles as one of the characters and the director failed at that because the camera was too busy focusing on all these annoying self-absorbed characters. Unless you're a Hollywood insider or are ambitious to make it into Hollywood film industry circles and want to know how Hollywood ticks, avoid this movie. It is just not entertaining.
I was trying to figure out why I felt so defensive watching this movie and it was more than just the self-absorbed characters. "What Just Happened" is a movie about Hollywood insiders made for the enjoyment of Hollywood insiders. No effort at all was made to let outsiders in on the joke. At a dinner party this would be rather rude! One could get much of the humor, but only if they scoured the industry media such as "Variety" and "The Hollywood Reporter ". Other than that, the average viewer is completely out of the loop! I could not bring myself to like one single character in this movie.
The worst part is that movies like this, at the least, usually show Los Angeles as one of the characters and the director failed at that because the camera was too busy focusing on all these annoying self-absorbed characters. Unless you're a Hollywood insider or are ambitious to make it into Hollywood film industry circles and want to know how Hollywood ticks, avoid this movie. It is just not entertaining.
Hollywood in Hollywood about Hollywood
danielledecolombie19 October 2008
Strange feeling for a French person to sit at a Hollywood movie theater to watch a movie about Hollywood. People around me laughed more than me because, presumably, the joke touches a lot of local nerves. The story is introduced by a score resembling the Nino Rota of "La Dolce Vita" but the similarities with "La Dolce Vita" end there. There is nothing new here other than Robert De Niro's performance, the first in a long time in which there is a notable commitment. I found the characters tiresome and far too familiar. I couldn't care less about any of them. The predicament of De Niro's Ben (a thinly veiled producer, writer Art Linson) left me cold. Living the times we're living, to concern myself with this was too much to ask.
Nothing Happened !
elshikh430 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
On its poster, you can read this opinion: "Outright Hilarious", being written by someone from the "Washington Post". Well, that lie is Outright Hilarious, rather the only funny thing about that film! Honestly, with other hands, the same story could have been good comedy, even if black one. Imagine (Billy Crystal) as the lead; WAW, that would have been more interesting than what we watched!
So it's not a comedy while it has some potential for it. OK, what is it then? I can answer that, it's a movie about "change is good". The crazy director doesn't want to change his end, the self-obsessed movie star doesn't want to change his face or body's features, while the fading producer does change his love, he doesn't want her to change him and love others.. and so on. However, what was the movie's point of view towards its issue? Forget that. How the movie could be beautiful while doing anything? Now that's what I can't forget, since I had hard time watching it!
In fact, it is poor and sullen film, without much to deliver. It sure fails at leaving an effect. I don't recall very good, or just good moment. It's like a boring reality show about boring life. (De Niro) did nothing but walking and driving all the time with bland face. That script has so little to present else couple of problems a Hollywood prouder might face. Then director (Barry Levinson), one of my favorites once, was so cold (the word is spiritless) in dealing with everything too. So what's left to catch or watch?? Sadly none!
Big part of this film's condition got a lot to do with the horrible fact that (Art Linson) wrote it. By the way, (Linson), old Hollywood producer, is the writer of the book which this movie is based on. So obviously he was retelling his story, yet by a way that makes him the only person to understand, or see, what just happens. As you see, that script needed another, more talented in cinematic writing, eye to make a complete, or at least anyway effective, script. Sorry that (Levinson), who wrote once (And Justice for All. - 1979), and the screenplay for (Sleepers - 1996), wasn't that eye. I feel even more sorry when he, as a director and producer, makes a movie such as this.
Fairly, I loved the last scene; with the embarrassing photo session, and maybe the surprise of the unseen doctor's identity, who the lead and his ex go to. Save that, it's a few dull shots of someone's life that ultimately formed unexpressive and unimpressive picture. In brief, if this film says something, then it's that (Barry Levinson) made bad film!
So it's not a comedy while it has some potential for it. OK, what is it then? I can answer that, it's a movie about "change is good". The crazy director doesn't want to change his end, the self-obsessed movie star doesn't want to change his face or body's features, while the fading producer does change his love, he doesn't want her to change him and love others.. and so on. However, what was the movie's point of view towards its issue? Forget that. How the movie could be beautiful while doing anything? Now that's what I can't forget, since I had hard time watching it!
In fact, it is poor and sullen film, without much to deliver. It sure fails at leaving an effect. I don't recall very good, or just good moment. It's like a boring reality show about boring life. (De Niro) did nothing but walking and driving all the time with bland face. That script has so little to present else couple of problems a Hollywood prouder might face. Then director (Barry Levinson), one of my favorites once, was so cold (the word is spiritless) in dealing with everything too. So what's left to catch or watch?? Sadly none!
Big part of this film's condition got a lot to do with the horrible fact that (Art Linson) wrote it. By the way, (Linson), old Hollywood producer, is the writer of the book which this movie is based on. So obviously he was retelling his story, yet by a way that makes him the only person to understand, or see, what just happens. As you see, that script needed another, more talented in cinematic writing, eye to make a complete, or at least anyway effective, script. Sorry that (Levinson), who wrote once (And Justice for All. - 1979), and the screenplay for (Sleepers - 1996), wasn't that eye. I feel even more sorry when he, as a director and producer, makes a movie such as this.
Fairly, I loved the last scene; with the embarrassing photo session, and maybe the surprise of the unseen doctor's identity, who the lead and his ex go to. Save that, it's a few dull shots of someone's life that ultimately formed unexpressive and unimpressive picture. In brief, if this film says something, then it's that (Barry Levinson) made bad film!
Fairly humorous send-up of Hollywood with a low-key De Niro & a game Willis
george.schmidt12 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
WHAT JUST HAPPENED? (2008) **1/2 Robert De Niro, Robin Wright Penn, Catherine Keener, Michael Wincott , Stanley Tucci, John Turturro, Kristen Stewart (as themselves: Bruce Willis and Sean Penn). Satirical comedy about a harried Hollywood producer (De Niro, surprisingly low- key), who is juggling a troubled post-production on a Sean Penn film with a difficult studio head (Keener at her ball-busting best) and an enfante terrible director (Wincott channeling Keith Richards); sex with his ex (Wright Penn); and attempting to coerce Willis (in a fun send- up of his image) to shave his bushy beard for his current production. Based on real-life film producer Art Linson's book (he also adapted the screenplay) and directed by Barry Levinson, it has more hits than misses yet its similar tone to De Niro/Levinson's "Wag the Dog" and "The Player" doesn't come as close for black comedy
This comedy isn't a comedy, but is enjoyable nonetheless
neil-4764 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I sometimes wonder about Hollywood's marketing strategy. What Just Happened? is marketed as a satirical comedy, and the title is a comedy title, the tagline "In Hollywood, everybody can hear you scream" is a comedy tagline, and yet the film isn't really funny at all. The answer may be in the fact that this adapted by a Hollywood insider from his own book, and the material may well have been much funnier on the printed page. But on screen, this film comes across as a light satirical drama with little comedy.
Which is not to say that it's not a good film - I was always interested and entertained. Robert De Niro is Ben, a successful Hollywood producer who is currently dealing with three major problems. The first is influencing the disastrous final cut of Fiercely, a Sean Penn vehicle directed by a wayward English auteur who is determined to include an audience-alienating ending of Penn's dog being bloodily executed by hit men. The second is trying to persuade Bruce Willis to shave his Grizzly Adams beard off before filming starts in 3 days' time on a new film, in the face of Willis' aggressive and offensive determination to retain it. And the third is trying to deal with his continuing feelings for his second wife despite their divorce 18 months ago.
The film is effectively a window into Sam's life over a period of about a week, and not all the plot threads are resolved. There are other minor threads which are left dangling, such as Ben finding out that his high school daughter has had some sort of relationship with an agent who recently committed suicide, schmoozing with Arab would-be film financiers, a fling with a girl encountered at a trade function etc. - these things are all parts of Ben's life, but none of them actually goes anywhere within the currency of the movie. I found that I didn't mind this, however.
De Niro is workmanlike, but the part could have been played equally well by any decent actor of that age. Williis' much-ballyhooed performance consists of shouting and swearing a lot and throwing things around. While it fits in with the character, it's not particularly funny. John Turturro does a weird turn as Bruce Willis' agent, pathologically avoiding conflict, and beset with stomach ailments. Stanley Tucci has a thankless part as a character whose sole function appears to be to adorn the plot in the way an ornament adorns a mantelpiece. Robin Wright Penn is very good as Ben's ex-wife. Catherine Keener is good as production head Lou. But by far the best thing in the movie is Michael Wincott as maverick director Jeremy. Showing an entirely unexpected flair for comedy, he turns the temperamental Jeremy into the funniest thing on screen in the entire movie. He also does a very credible south London accent (or should that be sarf Landon?) So the verdict is that you'll enjoy it, particularly if you're interested in the movie process, but don't expect to laugh your socks off, because you won't.
Which is not to say that it's not a good film - I was always interested and entertained. Robert De Niro is Ben, a successful Hollywood producer who is currently dealing with three major problems. The first is influencing the disastrous final cut of Fiercely, a Sean Penn vehicle directed by a wayward English auteur who is determined to include an audience-alienating ending of Penn's dog being bloodily executed by hit men. The second is trying to persuade Bruce Willis to shave his Grizzly Adams beard off before filming starts in 3 days' time on a new film, in the face of Willis' aggressive and offensive determination to retain it. And the third is trying to deal with his continuing feelings for his second wife despite their divorce 18 months ago.
The film is effectively a window into Sam's life over a period of about a week, and not all the plot threads are resolved. There are other minor threads which are left dangling, such as Ben finding out that his high school daughter has had some sort of relationship with an agent who recently committed suicide, schmoozing with Arab would-be film financiers, a fling with a girl encountered at a trade function etc. - these things are all parts of Ben's life, but none of them actually goes anywhere within the currency of the movie. I found that I didn't mind this, however.
De Niro is workmanlike, but the part could have been played equally well by any decent actor of that age. Williis' much-ballyhooed performance consists of shouting and swearing a lot and throwing things around. While it fits in with the character, it's not particularly funny. John Turturro does a weird turn as Bruce Willis' agent, pathologically avoiding conflict, and beset with stomach ailments. Stanley Tucci has a thankless part as a character whose sole function appears to be to adorn the plot in the way an ornament adorns a mantelpiece. Robin Wright Penn is very good as Ben's ex-wife. Catherine Keener is good as production head Lou. But by far the best thing in the movie is Michael Wincott as maverick director Jeremy. Showing an entirely unexpected flair for comedy, he turns the temperamental Jeremy into the funniest thing on screen in the entire movie. He also does a very credible south London accent (or should that be sarf Landon?) So the verdict is that you'll enjoy it, particularly if you're interested in the movie process, but don't expect to laugh your socks off, because you won't.
I'll tell you what happened!
stuart_a_mack28 November 2008
I can applaud the effort here, it really wants to say something, I'm just not certain that the director had the balls or the producer the guts to give it both barrels! Which I suppose is ironic given the subject matter! (Though I don't think intentional) Robert De Nero plays an ailing producer on the decline in the business, he has two ex wives and stress from egotistical stars and their demands, whether it be high maintenance directors or attention seeking actors.
The core of the problem I have with the film is that the main character is completely unsympathetic.
You'll hate him, he's shallow, selfish, egotistical and devoid of any passion. Whilst this may be the point of the character, and I think it is, it doesn't make for a good film! I went away from the film thinking that they were trying to tell me that Hollywood is full of artists, but that the system breaks them down into nothing more that monkeys who turn out dross films that appeal to the mass market because focus groups tell them too.
Well if the artists are going to produce films like this then maybe there should be some editorial control, away from the hands of the artists because this missed, in my opinion, on just about every level.
The film that this will be compared to most is The Player by Robert Altman, a much better film and I highly recommend, the main difference between these two films however is in The Player everyone is in on the joke, Altman never speaks down to the audience and has fun with the story.
Tim Robbins (in The Player) is just as much of a shallow and hollow character and you'll dislike him as much as De Nero in this but because you are included in the joke, because you can see how distanced from reality he has become, by being a part of the Hollywood system, you can feel sorry for him.
Sadly for De Nero in this I couldn't.
I can't recommend this title to anyone but the dedicated film fan who will see a lot of the in jokes about Hollywood, everyone else should give it a miss.
The core of the problem I have with the film is that the main character is completely unsympathetic.
You'll hate him, he's shallow, selfish, egotistical and devoid of any passion. Whilst this may be the point of the character, and I think it is, it doesn't make for a good film! I went away from the film thinking that they were trying to tell me that Hollywood is full of artists, but that the system breaks them down into nothing more that monkeys who turn out dross films that appeal to the mass market because focus groups tell them too.
Well if the artists are going to produce films like this then maybe there should be some editorial control, away from the hands of the artists because this missed, in my opinion, on just about every level.
The film that this will be compared to most is The Player by Robert Altman, a much better film and I highly recommend, the main difference between these two films however is in The Player everyone is in on the joke, Altman never speaks down to the audience and has fun with the story.
Tim Robbins (in The Player) is just as much of a shallow and hollow character and you'll dislike him as much as De Nero in this but because you are included in the joke, because you can see how distanced from reality he has become, by being a part of the Hollywood system, you can feel sorry for him.
Sadly for De Nero in this I couldn't.
I can't recommend this title to anyone but the dedicated film fan who will see a lot of the in jokes about Hollywood, everyone else should give it a miss.
Regarding the Credits
randy31-27 February 2009
Regarding the credits. Where's the name of 'Buster the Dog' or whatever his name is, in the actual credits? After all it was the story about the dog (the featured character) in the picture that made the dog gone movie have a story in the first place. Instead, throughout the credits all we got as viewers was, 'Animals by...'. I ask you, "What Just Happened?" Hollywood isn't what it used to be. At one time they had thinkers now all that's left are a pack of glorified adult children in a cesspool playground of vanity and greed. Robert DeNiro as one of the Producers, you of all people, should know better. I liked the flow throughout the movie there may have been longer lasting rest stops along the way, yet generally the pacing was good. The casting was excellent but Bruce Willis's rant in the costume room before entering the trailer was as they say 'over the top' or is he just this idiotic in real time reality too? Many of the moments in Cannes France had a desirable effect to enhance and establish a status of wealth gone mad. With such an eclectic elite performance by many of todays leading actors, one might have given more time to think of the true star of the show, the bloody dog. Wake up all of you wise guys.
Boring
vampirbg1 February 2009
This film was very boring and a perfect example of the current state of things in Hollywood. They think that just by bringing big stars in the movie will have to be a hit.
The actors are not the problem. They did their part. The problem is in the script or rather lack of it. The script is better suited for a 45 minute episode than for a whole movie. That's probably why the movie needed to be padded with long scenes of traveling. Also, the pace is too slow.
My advice to everyone is to avoid this movie. Watching paint dry is equally amusing and you might even get it for free.
The actors are not the problem. They did their part. The problem is in the script or rather lack of it. The script is better suited for a 45 minute episode than for a whole movie. That's probably why the movie needed to be padded with long scenes of traveling. Also, the pace is too slow.
My advice to everyone is to avoid this movie. Watching paint dry is equally amusing and you might even get it for free.
Low key Hollywood satire
NateWatchesCoolMovies21 May 2016
Barry Levinson's What Just Happened is an unfairly overlooked little Hollywood satire, a little less bombastic than his excellent Wag The Dog, but no less biting. It's like Entourage on Zanax, a surprisingly laid back entry into an oeuvre that is usually foaming at the mouth with frenzy. Robert De Niro plays Ben, a very stressed out movie producer who is dealing with a zillion different things at once, most of which are going wrong. The character is based partly on real life Hollywood producer Art Linson, and his book. Ben has a lead actor (Bruce Willis playing Bruce Willis) who refuses to shave his bushy beard for a film. Anyone who remembers the film The Edge with Alec Baldwin and how big his beard was in that, well, that's where the idea came from. That's just a taste of how many weird things that both Hollywood and his personal life toss at Ben. He's also in post production on a Sean Penn film (Penn also plays himself) with a very stubborn and flamboyant director named Jeremy (Michael Wincott) who refuses to cut the film in accordance with the studio's wishes (here manifested by an icy Catherine Keener). Ben's daughter (a weepy Kristen Stewart) is going through personal crisis, he's also got a bitter rivalry with an obnoxious writer (Stanley Tucci) and has to babysit an anxiety ridden agent (John Turturro). It's all a lot for him to handle and we begin to see the turmoil start to boil under Ben's cool exterior. The cast is beyond ridiculous, with additional work from Moon Bloodgood, Peter Jacobson, Lily Rabe and Robin Wright as Ben's estranged wife. Standouts include Michael Wincott who is a comic gem and gives the film it's life with his pissy, enraged and altogether charming performance. Willis is also priceless as he ruthlessly parodies himself to the hilt. It's slight, it's never too much and is probably a bit too laid back for its own good, but I had a lot of fun with it, and it's always cool to see meta movies about the inner workings of Hollywood.
What a waste
dmasursky13 April 2009
Shockingly dull movie, considering the terrific cast and the potentially fascinating storyline. Not sure how they managed to take two weeks in the crazy life of a Hollywood producer and produce such a snore. The main point seems to be that creativity is squelched in the Hollywood movie-making process, but the two characters who most represent creative integrity in the film (the Actor and the Director) are complete assholes who act cruel and crazy. It's such a muddled message, and everyone in the movie is so unappealing and unsympathetic, that I walked away just shaking my head. Could have been sharp, smart and fun, instead it's a total waste of 87 minutes (that felt much longer!)
on the contrary to the other commenter, this is very funny, and a slight comeback for Levinson
Quinoa198414 March 2008
Director Barry Levinson hasn't had much luck lately- after Bandits, which was a good though not anything very noteworthy comedy caper, he had two colossal duds in a row- Envy and Man of the Year- which, despite an otherwise impressive host of films (i.e. Diner, Rainman, Sleepers, even Toys) could have threatened to throw him off track ala Rob Reiner. But in a way What Just Happened was relatable for Levinson, despite it being the stories of Art Linson, semi-famous producer who's had hits and misses throughout his career, and at the same time gave him some ample material for some sardonic, spot-on satire of the industry. It's not the Player, don't get me wrong, but it gives its winks and nods to the egomania, the preciousness of directors and stars, and how personal lives get caught up in the mix without getting too smug with us common moviegoers.
Probably the funniest, as sort of a near running gag, is the latest film that producer Ben (De Niro) is being test-screened for audiences; a rough cut of "Fiercly" starring Sean Penn (who, as with Bruce Willis, plays "Himself" in the film) disturbs the audience because, on top of a bleak end for its hero, a dog is killed on screen (this, for all the wrong reasons, is hysterical funny, if only for the deadpan reaction from DeNiro to the insanely negative response cards). The director, however, a British hipster (brilliantly played by Michael Wincott), doesn't take it lightly that he doesn't have final cut. This brings around what seems like a moment of levity midway... and then back to the start when it comes time for Cannes. On top of this is Willis's 'plot-line' involving a beard he won't shave off. It's almost like a slight reprisal of his part in Four Rooms, only put to a much bigger, aggrandizing maximum. Both of these, much like seeing certain characters in a Christopher Guest movie, elicit laughs anytime they're on screen.
And the rest of the movie is... still very good. Aside from some scenes where Levinson decides to rush things along via the speedy transitions, he provides a style that suits the feel of the material, of Ben trying to balance his personal struggles (an ex-wife he can't totally let go of, and his rebellious teen daughter with a secret) with the eternal BS of getting work done in an industry concerned, a lot more often than not, with the final dollar over artistic integrity. It's not quite reality TV, but it has that unpredictable, on-the-fly hand-held feeling all the same, which is a method much more effective used here than in Man of the Year. And De Niro is also surprisingly good (maybe not a surprise to some, but considering some of his hit-or-miss turns in recent fare), as he doesn't lay too low-key in the part. One can probably see De Niro having studied producers- not just Linson himself but others- for long stretches to get the right steps for each deliberate step in ego-maniacal Hollywood.
So sit back, relax, and enjoy some near classic self-conscious satire on an industry that deserves anything those in it can dish back out (if that makes sense).
Probably the funniest, as sort of a near running gag, is the latest film that producer Ben (De Niro) is being test-screened for audiences; a rough cut of "Fiercly" starring Sean Penn (who, as with Bruce Willis, plays "Himself" in the film) disturbs the audience because, on top of a bleak end for its hero, a dog is killed on screen (this, for all the wrong reasons, is hysterical funny, if only for the deadpan reaction from DeNiro to the insanely negative response cards). The director, however, a British hipster (brilliantly played by Michael Wincott), doesn't take it lightly that he doesn't have final cut. This brings around what seems like a moment of levity midway... and then back to the start when it comes time for Cannes. On top of this is Willis's 'plot-line' involving a beard he won't shave off. It's almost like a slight reprisal of his part in Four Rooms, only put to a much bigger, aggrandizing maximum. Both of these, much like seeing certain characters in a Christopher Guest movie, elicit laughs anytime they're on screen.
And the rest of the movie is... still very good. Aside from some scenes where Levinson decides to rush things along via the speedy transitions, he provides a style that suits the feel of the material, of Ben trying to balance his personal struggles (an ex-wife he can't totally let go of, and his rebellious teen daughter with a secret) with the eternal BS of getting work done in an industry concerned, a lot more often than not, with the final dollar over artistic integrity. It's not quite reality TV, but it has that unpredictable, on-the-fly hand-held feeling all the same, which is a method much more effective used here than in Man of the Year. And De Niro is also surprisingly good (maybe not a surprise to some, but considering some of his hit-or-miss turns in recent fare), as he doesn't lay too low-key in the part. One can probably see De Niro having studied producers- not just Linson himself but others- for long stretches to get the right steps for each deliberate step in ego-maniacal Hollywood.
So sit back, relax, and enjoy some near classic self-conscious satire on an industry that deserves anything those in it can dish back out (if that makes sense).
The good point = DeNiro actually acts
bostonlatin1 March 2009
For the first time in 10 years, Robert DeNiro proved that he can still act and he is not just a caricature from the Godfather and Good Fellas.
Clearly, The Player still ranks as the best Hollywood insider flick. This film does do a decent job of summarizing Hollywood business. Nobody comes across as evil.
There are brief, infrequent funny moments.
The movie itself is a bit slow, with totally wasted cameos from Bruce Willis and John Turturro (who is becoming rapidly annoying). Both parts should have been deleted and were a total waste. Stereotypes abound with wealthy Israeli financiers, drugged out artist directors mean spirited but bright female studio bosses, writers with crazy ideas.
Very nice cameos from Sean Penn and Robin Wright Penn and Kristen Stewart.
If you like Hollywood insider movies, I think you will find the movie somewhat enjoyable. Not great but not bad.
Clearly, The Player still ranks as the best Hollywood insider flick. This film does do a decent job of summarizing Hollywood business. Nobody comes across as evil.
There are brief, infrequent funny moments.
The movie itself is a bit slow, with totally wasted cameos from Bruce Willis and John Turturro (who is becoming rapidly annoying). Both parts should have been deleted and were a total waste. Stereotypes abound with wealthy Israeli financiers, drugged out artist directors mean spirited but bright female studio bosses, writers with crazy ideas.
Very nice cameos from Sean Penn and Robin Wright Penn and Kristen Stewart.
If you like Hollywood insider movies, I think you will find the movie somewhat enjoyable. Not great but not bad.
An overlong "comedy" devoid of humour
rowmorg1 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This must have started out as an elegant joke about a sophisticated asylum called the Los Angeles movie studio system. Instead it turned out a monumental flop that reinforces the image of an overweight suburb of Jerusalem that lives in a golden bubble. Only a roomful of accountants could imagine this picture to be a biting satire. DeNiro plays an utterly unsympathetic bead-counter devoid of vision who disobeys every rule of scriptwriting ever written: he is not heroic, he does not learn anything during the story-arc, he encounters no genuine obstacles, and his interest in women is 100% prurient. I suppose the idea was that he would be dead-pan: instead he's just dead, only he won't roll over. Above all, like the Queen of England, he never says anything interesting from beginning to end. It's enough to make you throw your shoe through the screen. Avoid at all costs.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
