1 line
1.4 KiB
Plaintext
1 line
1.4 KiB
Plaintext
Bedazzled is a maddeningly flat attempt to remake a classic. It isn't horrid, but I suppose people as talented as Harold Ramis and Brendon Fraser would really have to try to produce a really bad film. The problem seems to be pacing--this version seems content to hit a so-so joke every couple of minutes, while the original was much more consistently funny. This version is hardly trying--in the original, the magic words were "Julie Andrews!", here they're "I wish". Does "I wish" seem funny to you?<br /><br /> The big difference is of course casting Elizabeth Hurley as the Devil. As an actress, Ms. Hurley has very nice breasts. That's probably unfair, she's not bad and does bring a sense of panache to the role, but she raises a problem--why would the main character still be interested in his co-worker after getting a gander at Ms. Hurley's cleavage?<br /><br /> Fraser is sensational, and probably deserves an Oscar nod if people in comedies ever got Oscar nominations. Fraser is just about the only actor who can go from drama (With Honors) to action (The Mummy) to comedy (George of the Jungle) and be credible in each. He handles his various roles impeccably. But the screenplay is flat and listless, and seemingly goes from set-up to set-up with no motivation. The ending is straight out of the blue, although it does make a certain amount of sense. Still, Bedazzled is a far cry from the original. |