Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

Redwarmin This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

Teringer An Exercise In Nonsense

Jenna Walter The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

roberjruiz If you don't know the original movie from 1967, you may think this is a good film, with an original plot. But when you compare both movies, you will realize that one of them, the British one from 1967 is far better.Elegant English humor vs Brendan Fraser grimacing.A pitiful victim, played by Dudley Moore vs an always overacting Brendan Fraser.Cynic devil: Peter Cook vs sensual one: Liz Hurley (In the old movie, the devil is not so tempting, that's true, but you have "Lust", one of the seven capital sins, interpreted by a young an sexy Rachel Welch).And the ending: The cynic ending of the 1967 movie, when God childishly laughs at the devil, vs the typical Hollywood happy ending in the American version (Yes, he gets the girl).

Jellybeansucker Big fan of original and thought I wouldn't like this because of that, but when I eventually saw it, I liked it. It restyles the wishes for a modern day audience and they were mostly very funny. My favourite was the sensitive boy, the funniest by a long way. The two dogs named Dudley & Peter was a nice little nod to the innovative original too.Hurley was surprisingly good in her role and having a Brit starring in it was a the right thing to do. Frazer is a very good versatile actor, always good at comedy. It's more OTT than the original and it didn't last the distance quite as well, notably sagging in the last third, I thought. The script is funny but not subtle and witty like the 67 film. That script had a lot of Peter Cook gems in and is worth watching just to see a different type of humour.The remake didn't murder it at all, like some have wrongly said. It was a quite different version of it for more in your face modern tastes. Stands up on its own well if you didn't see or want to see the original, making it a worthy remake project. Thought it missed a trick by not including the seven deadly sins in person as the original did, one of my favourite scenes of the 67 film, however it helps make both films quite different watches. Just choose the version to suit your mood.

Raul Faust Well, I start this reviewing saying how much I enjoyed this movie. "Bedazzled" has a very original story, in which a loser signs a contract with the devil in order to gain 7 wishes-- that are actually a curse in disguise. One thing to congratulate is the extremely professional way that Brandan Fraser portrays some characters; an actor needs to be very careful to perform such imitation. At some points I thought the story would go into a creepy stuff, and happily it didn't-- that wasn't the point of the movie afterall. It's also great that writers didn't appeal to any religion or lack of religion, allowing every kind of spectator enjoy this without feeling insulted. Moreover, it doesn't have any moral lesson to leave the spectator feeling cheesy. Great movie, indeed!

maria-em1905 I know I can't give you some insights about the movie that would mean a lot. Anyway, I think it made the best out of the story about the devil and even though it can't compare to Ma vie es un enfer, it was a nice comedy to watch. Elizabeth Hurley is a great comedian, really. I didn't expect something that good from a model. Along with Brandon, it was a nice dialogue to watch. I would also say each story had its unique insights that I found not too pretentious and just the kind that would make you think about some things in life, but not too seriously. I don't understand why that comedy wasn't unappreciated in its time. It served everything that a good funny movie ought to - nice laughs, fresh jokes, good acting and an interesting story. I enjoyed watching it and I recommend it to everyone, as long as they feel like watching a fine comedy.