Sexy Devil

The story behind this film is much more interesting than the movie itself. It seems that production of the film stopped before the final product could be released. According to Wikipedia, the project ran out of money AND some of the investors were being investigated for bank fraud! I have no idea of the outcome of the legal matters, but the movie sat on the shelf for several years. Ultimately, it was sold through an auction and the buyers edited the film themselves...without the film's director, Alec Baldwin. As a result, Baldwin demanded his name be taken off as director...which seems more than understandable. Then, when the film was ultimately released, it lost money.

The story is a modern interpretation of the old story "The Devil and Daniel Webster" (1941). However, it also goes by the title "Shortcut to Happiness".

The story is about Jabez (Baldwin), a frustrated writer sho has had no success with his work. He's about to give up when he receives a visit from the Devil (Jennifer Love Hewitt). She offers to make him famous if he sells her his soul...which he does. However, despite huge immediate success, the deal doesn't make him happy in any way. In fact, in some ways it makes his life worse. So, in desperation, he gets the book agent, Daniel Webster (Anthony Hopkins) to represent him in a court made up of famous dead authors to argue that the deal is null and void.

The story ISN'T bad. Considering how it was made, it's actually very surprising it's even watchable. But there are a few problems. First, the 1941 film is much better. Second, while I am sure Hewitt is a lovely person, she seemed all wrong for her role. Third, the film is just flat...watchable but flat.

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.

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.

It's very interesting how some old ideas always come back "in new clothing" to movies or literature. This movie is a good example. It's about the "old but nice" cliché of Faust, the man how sells his immortal soul to the devil in exchange of achieving happiness.

I like Jennifer Love Hewitt playing devil in this movie. I don't think she's gorgeous or a tremendous actress, but she's cute and did a good job in this movie.

This movie mixes references to classic US writers, the "not a penny in the pocket" world of the amateur writers struggling to be noted by a publisher and the the US mania for justice court battles.

It's a light movie for relaxing with friends or the girlfriend/boyfriend.

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.