IMDb link

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CuWJtut9pAk?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CuWJtut9pAk?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Release date is currently set for December 17, 2010.

Looks pretty good, and I like all of Brooks' movies, but it's not the Overnight Delivery sequel that I have been anxiously anticipating. I liked the bit with Rudd running away from bad news, though.

James L. Brooks is one of my favorite directors. Broadcast News is my favorite comedy of the 80s.

I'm not a fan of the other films he's directed, but Broadcast News is one of my top ten 80s movies.

aside from the crappy generic vibe that music gives off...my interest for this movie is there.

I like the cast, aside from Witherspoon, but this looks a little too romantic for my tastes.

This doesn't look very good at all and I really can't stand Paul Rudd but I'll have to give it a chance because of Nicholson.

^ Nicholson works well with James L. Brooks.

I bet Jack is hardly in it.

Paul Rudd is in it so I'm there.

I agree that this film looks terrible. The pacing in the trailer just seemed so off. Brooks' movies have been pretty awful these past two decades. And I don't think Nicholson could even save this.

Who cut this trailer? Worst trailer of the year.

Bad trailer, but maybe good movie?

I loathe almost anything and everything directed James L. Brooks. "As Good As It Gets" was one of the most vile cinematic turds ever unleashed. This trailer does nothing to change my feelings about his work or make me want to rush out to theaters immediately when the film comes out. Ugh. Worse than Pol Pot.

I used to think JLB could do no wrong, then I saw Spanglish.

Spanglish sucks, there is no denying that. As Good as it Gets isn't a bad film by any means. Jack Nicholson gives one of my favorite comedic peroformances.

I just watched the trailer, and no, this doesn't look too promising. I will see the finished product though, just not as enthusiatically.

Rudd & Wilson means I'll be buying a ticket.

one of the things that annoys me about JLB movies is that he always has chacters that big special jobs, but it never adds anything to their characters. Adam Sandler was a celebrity chef in Spanglish, Jack Nicholson was a famous writer in AGAIG, not being just a small town news anchor but instead it had to be the primetime news. Even Jack Nicholson in TOE was an astronaut.

This movie looks the same with Owen being a major league pitcher.

http://blog.movies.yahoo.com/blog/26...-for-talent?nc

The budget for this movie was reported today.

$120M


$50M budget on just the principal actors/director salaries.

Reese Witherspoon= $15M
Jack Nicholson= $12M
Owen Wilson= $10M
Paul Rudd= $3M
James L. Brooks= $10m

/\ Yeah, I just saw that article. What. The. Fuck?

Brooks did Terms of Endearment too, right?
Looking forward to it.

Wow. Rudd got screwed royally. He would be my number one reason for seeing the movie. Nicholson second. Owen Wilson third. Brooks fourth. I would see this despite the fact it has Witherspoon in it, certainly not because it has her in it.

This movie was all shades of a plodding bore. Whatever cinematic magic James L. Brooks had in the 1980s, he's lost most of it.

Terrible plot, terrible script, uninspired acting, and overly long running time.

I give it 1 star, or a grade of D.

Owen Wilson still gets $10 million? Yikes. Maybe if this was his follow up to Wedding Crashers.

There had to be cheaper, funnier options.

A friend of mine from high school that won a gold medal in the Olympics with team USA helped Reese out with the role so I'll be checking this out eventually.

I agree with you there. talk about a bunch of actors sounding neurotic and angsty to annoying effect. The film started off okay, but then just worse ... and worse.