Sexy Devil

This is one of those films that I remember being in the can for years before anything happening w/it. I don't think it's terrible, but it's not really good either. Alec Baldwin was pretty good, but the plot is it kind of flimsy at best. The cast is pretty good in what they're given, but again you are only as good as the script. Baldwin directing this although I could have sworn he didn't direct all of it, I thought I read somewhere or lots of re-shoots wasn't bad but he definitely has some potential in there. Although his work on "30 Rock" is nothing short of genius & should keep him busy for a little while longer. I just hope the show bows out gracefully a la Seinfeld, but maybe not even that long. 9 years it went. So if you want to see a film that you won't get much from, but won't really hate either well this is for you. I can't remember the last time a film had been wrapped so long before finally being released & only on DVD at that. It was nice to see Alec Baldwin & Anthony Hopkins again together since their excellent yet not much people have seen "The Edge." Now pick up that excellent film for some real entertainment.

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.

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 ****

As a teacher of fifty years experience in language and cinematic arts,I taught "The Devil and Dan'l Webster" as part of the fictional pantheon of American Literature. Although Alec Baldwin certainly has burned some bridges along the way in his career, this film takes creative risks, many of them worthy of consideration, which exemplify a significant part of Americana. Like its forbear, the 1941 cinematic adaptation starring Walter Huston, this version was attacked, condemned and dismissed when it was released. I believe that every adaptation of any book is an aesthetic fossil caught in cinematic amber.

The movie substantiates the same sort of meretricious value system in its depiction of Jabez Stone that struck Stephen Vincent Benet and the makers of the 1941 gem. In its lampooning of pretentious high society panderers of cheesy albeit popular writing, casting them as best-sellers, "Shortcut to Happiness"dramatizes a contemporary examination of what actually constitutes success in the dizzying world of publications.

Anthony Hopkins was well cast in the role of Daniel Webster. It is instructive to compare and contrast Edward Arnold's portrayal of Webster in the 1941 classic with that of Hopkins, because both actors have earned a lifetime of accolades, portraying both admirable and despicable characters. Hopkins and Arnold remain symbols of financial and thespian success.

Hollywood has a bad record for disapproving of movies solely on the basis of profit. I would love to see "Shortcut to Happiness" go into post-production, be subjected to a diverse array of test audiences after a skillful rewrite. The issues that concerned Stephen Vincent Benet in 1937 are alive and with us all today in almost every area of business, politics, entertainment, and government. Success is whatever you can get away with.

Audiences will go to see bad movies. But Hollywood only seems to take the loving and meticulously-artistic care to produce two or three cinematic gems each year. Whoever had the final say in terms of condemning this movie wasted time, money, and the potential for achieving what its creators had in mind when the idea was but an inspiration culled from reading the classic and wishing to update it.

If one of my students had submitted this movie script to me, I would have said, "Promising rough draft," and suggest various ways to improve it with my reasons for doing so.

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.