james l. brooks Tagged Articles at Cinematical

With the writer's strike in full swing, I thought I'd pay tribute to a few of the writers who currently have films in theaters. Quite frankly, you really have to admire some of them. Take Allison Burnett, who adapted Feast of Love (2 screens) as well as this year's earlier Resurrecting the Champ. Burnett received very little love for either movie, but consider how hard it must have been to cut down a novel and expand a newspaper article at the same time? It makes my head spin. It's also quite impressive that Burnett was able to work again after his earlier script was turned into the universally panned film Autumn in New York (2000). But the thing that impressed me most of all about Burnett is his first produced script, Bloodfist III: Forced to Fight (1992), a vehicle for "Z" level action star Don 'The Dragon' Wilson. This is from a guy who studied playwriting and has published a novel. I can only imagine what it must be like to sit down and actually write something like that. Do you tape the paycheck on the wall next to your desk and keep staring at it? Good for Burnett that he made it out of that hole.

Then there's The Simpsons Movie (96 screens), which has at least eleven credited writers, and possibly more who added material without credit. Among them we have David Mirkin, who directed one of my all-time favorite guilty pleasures, Heartbreakers (2001), and James L. Brooks, who won an armload of Oscars for Terms of Endearment (1983). Most of the others are from TV, and I'd like to think they wrote this movie the way they might have written a half-hour episode: by sitting around a big table and throwing out ideas and laughing a lot. Those writer rooms are usually decorated with stuffed animals and novelty items, as well as plates of donuts and other snacks -- perhaps some kind of air freshener as well. It makes me all warm just thinking about it.

Four words: Best. Simpsons. Episode. Ever.

Heading into The Simpsons Movie I'll admit that it would've been pretty tough to find someone more skeptical than I was. For me (as well as a lot of people), the long-running television series had lost its touch in the past few years. South Park and Family Guy were continually pushing the animated boundaries as far as content goes, and The Simpsons had become the Roger Clemens of television. It was old, sure -- way passed its prime, maybe -- but it still managed to toss a gem every once in awhile. And that's why we continued to watch; some of us in awe that the show had survived a cluttered marketplace long enough to be prepping a 19th season, while others simply watched because Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa, Maggie and the rest of Springfield still brought smiles to their faces, regardless of how old, stale and regurgitated the gags had become.

I remember The Simpsons Movie myth stretching all the way back to my school days. Somehow someone caught wind that they were thinking about a movie; at the time, the big rumor was that Bart would lose his virginity to an older woman. Remember that? But it wasn't until a few years ago that The Simpsons Movie became a reality. In the meantime, both South Park and Family Guy (The Simpsons greatest competition) were already putting out movies, with the former breaking ground on the big screen and the latter on DVD. Yet when both of those films began to lose their thunder halfway through, I became convinced it would be impossible for The Simpsons -- let alone any half-hour television cartoon -- to deliver an hour and a half full of high-quality entertainment. Thus, a heated argument amongst hardcore fans ensued: Would The Simpsons surprise everyone? Or would they look like suckers for risking a stellar 19-year career on a film that was bound to go down in a massive ball of flames? Thankfully, The Simpsons Movie proved 19 years was well worth the wait.