Patto con il Diavolo

One of the reviews says there were three versions of the film. I'd like to see Baldwin's original cut of this movie. The last version was cut badly, there are many unnatural breaks in the film. like it was edited for commercial breaks. The breaks where scenes were cut seem apparent.

Apparently the 1941 movie suffered a similar fate, with many titles and severe editing.

The story runs counter to the traditional American ethic of money equaling happiness.

The film was purchased out of bankruptcy for a fraction of production costs, and renamed and hacked for a fast return on investment.

Tasteless rewrite of "The Devil and Daniel Webster" has a struggling novelist named Jabez Stone unable to get anything published much less find anyone to read his work; he enters into a pact with a comely female Satan for fame and fortune in exchange for his immortal soul. Update of Archibald Macleish's play "Scratch" and 1941's far-superior "The Devil and Daniel Webster" (wherein a panicked farmer was the tempted man) was produced and directed by its star, Alec Baldwin. There's a fine supporting cast including Anthony Hopkins as lawyer Daniel Webster and Jennifer Love Hewitt as the Devil but, unfortunately, the picture was edited against Baldwin's wishes after sitting on the shelf for years (it finally debuted on the Starz network in 2007 after a few theatrical bookings). The film begins well but quickly loses its footing once Baldwin's writer gains the success he so desired, turning the picture into a yuppie treatise on the old money-can't-buy-happiness ploy. The filmmakers are so out-of-touch, they don't even consider the fact that maybe some of the writer's needs are in fact fulfilled by his newfound celebrity. Instead, he becomes a sad sack with money in the bank and women at his feet--clearly not something actual struggling writers can identify with. Worse, there's never a moment when Stone's heart is detectable; Baldwin is so callow an actor (not to mention as the director) that all we perceive are his handsome, unmodulated externals. Pursing his lips and gazing intently at the camera, hoping to smolder, Baldwin loses track of the character and where he came from. The final courtroom battle is well-played, though so much of the writing is smarmy and executed without style that the overall results are distinctly unsatisfactory. *1/2 from ****

This is yet another Faustian tale put to celluloid, though unlike both versions of Bedazzled, it's not exactly a comedy, more a dramedy, only funny in parts. Both Baldwin and Hopkins are fine in their roles, but unfortunately Jennifer Love Hewitt is completely out of her depth, especially when sharing the screen with Hopkins.it's a okay plot that will keep you entertained, though nothing more.

This movie was fun but Jennifer Love Hewitt was so utterly miscast. She's fine for some light TV but she's not a powerful enough actress to play in an ensemble of this caliber. Everyone in it, Kim Catrall, Hopkins, Rubin, Akroyd, and even Baldwin himself are quite wonderful but Ms. Hewitt throws the balance. She's the thing that spoils the movie; especially her delivery of the last "closing argument" monologue belongs in some kind of first year acting class. The movie is a bit moralistic and sentimental and in my opinion it does not live up to the actual story of The Devil and Daniel Webster which is, in many ways more subtle than how Baldwin had handled it. He's gone for a more commercial treatment of a concept whose sophistication could have been just as entertaining. All in all, it's a fun little piece thought some of the sets, the editing as well as the casting of Hewitt should have been rethought. Baldwin is a decent enough director; keeps the film moving and definitely gives the characters good arcs.

Years ago I first learned of this movie, as well as its troubled production and reportedly bad quality. Of course, that made me want to see it, but I couldn't find it anywhere until I came across it by accident on Amazon Prime Video. Well, does the movie show tell-tale signs of behind the scenes troubles, and is it a really bad movie? Yes and yes. There are many things wrong with this movie, such as the flat or downright awful performances by the cast, the fact that it's obvious that linking footage or entire scenes are missing, the pacing is extremely slow, and the fact that telling this classic story in a modern setting brings no new perspective or angles. However, what really bothered me most about the movie was that the movie never finds a clear tone and sticks with it. As it is, the movie is too goofy to be taken seriously, but somehow also too serious to make the comic touches amusing. The results are that I was not quite sure how to take this story.... apart from it being done in a really bad manner. While I'll admit some of the blame for the movie's failure doesn't fall on director/actor Alec Baldwin's shoulders - he claimed that the movie was taken out of his hands and butchered by others - there are no real signs that his intended version would have been that much better. In short, the movie is a really strange change of genre for prolific schlockmeister producers Randall Emmett and George Furla. But not strange enough to really catch the interest of the select few who sometimes get a kick out of big budget cinematic misfires.