Bedazzled
Starring: Brendan Fraser, Elizabeth Hurley, and Frances O'Connor
Directed by Harold Ramis
Produced by Harold Ramis and Trevor Albert
Written by Harold Ramis, Larry Gelbart and Peter Tolan.

When a geeky computer programmer (Fraser) is frustrated by a female office-mate who won't give him the time of day, he is approached by the devil (Hurley) who offers him seven wishes in exchange for his soul. He accepts, thinking this will enable him to win the object of his affection, and hilarity ensues as his wishes go increasingly awry-or at least, that's the premise in this remake of the 1967 film which starred Peter Cook and Dudley Moore. This special effect laden comedy kept a wry grin on my face for an hour and forty minutes, but I don't recall laughing. Also, the mini-message it attempts to convey is muddled at best.

Though predictable on every level, (even if you haven't seen the original), there are some funny moments in this picture. Fraser performs admirably in a variety of roles, as each wish lends him different size, face, hair, complexion, posture, etc. For a Hollywood "pretty-boy", he spends much of the film looking pasty and acting jittery... and doing it well. It's amusing to see him portray a Spanish drug lord, an effete snob, a basketball star, and more. Unfortunately, his character is poorly written, so he has sparse humor to work with. Hurley as Satan, however, suffers from the reverse problem. Some of the funniest moments in the film are the tasks she performs casually while conversing with Fraser (forcing meters to expire and ticketing the parked cars, switching hospital meds with tic-tacs, etc.). Unfortunately, Hurley isn't up to her material-rather than playing a great Satan, she seems to be playing Elizabeth Hurley playing the devil. She has the "object of lust" schtick down without trying, but everything else is hollow. Her movement and dialogue appear forced-"I am walking to my mark, I have hit my mark, I am turning on my mark, I am saying my scripted line..."-and, if it was a stylistic choice to make her devil melodramatic, it doesn't quite work. Weak writing for Fraser's well-delivered character and poor acting for Hurley's essential role are part of what keep this film from following through.

I wasn't expecting high theology from this cheap comedy, certainly. Still, I was disappointed by the mixed signals the film conveyed in regard to the soul, and man's place in the cosmic scheme, if only because one line was so beautifully spot-on. When Fraser is down to his last wish, and in jail, a "mysterious stranger" (a God-figure, possibly Christ) appears, and tells him that he hasn't "lost" his soul. "You can't sell what doesn't belong to you," his cellmate states. The fate of his soul-no matter what its condition-is ultimately in God's hands. This conversation and intervention prompt Fraser to think about what he's doing, and ultimately help him escape the devil's clutches. The film doesn't follow through with this position, however. At the end, when the deals off, Fraser rejoices that his soul is "his" again. And we're also told that the whole good/evil, God/devil thing "really boils down to you"... that ultimately, this whole thing is all about US. What a crock. The film almost implied a God-centered reality, but then brings it back to a "me-centered" universe. The fact that this final piece of information comes from the devil at the end of the film will likely escape most viewers, because it is delivered as one of the devil's rare, frank moments of "honesty". I was reminded of the final scene of "The Devil's Advocate", when the devil begins working on Reeve's character again from a new angle. Too bad I don't think this is what Ramis intended.

***SPOILER ALERT*** (next paragraph explores-ahem-"climactic" plot point)
I would also debate the single act of "altruism" Fraser's character performs at the film's climax, which revokes his deal with the devil. Of all the "selfless" acts he might have performed (ending world hunger, ending war, promoting good will toward men, stopping violence or abuse in other countries) he wishes that the girl he has a crush on will enjoy a "happy life". Talk about selfish... a thousand different wishes he might have made for people in a large or generous way, yet Fraser's character wastes it on a single girl he's been lusting after. And why? Likely so he could feel good about himself, proving the depth of "love" that he felt for the girl. Altruistic my ascot.

In defense of the film, however, "Bedazzled" doesn't attempt to have depth; it is a paper-thin comedy with a few larks and funny moments, that isn't trying to convey any message-only to deliver a few laughs. It delivers chuckles. There is also a fair amount of sexual humor and language that is likely to turn off many Christians, so I wouldn't recommend it to the discriminating and financially budgeting viewer. If you really want to see the film, wait for the video or DVD.

If you're truly bored, and looking for cheap laughs and general silliness, I'd sooner recommend the latest Jackie Chan movie. I haven't seen it yet, but Chan is definitely a better wager for belly laughs.