MovieChat Forums > Bedazzled (1967) Discussion > One case where the US remake improved on...

One case where the US remake improved on the original.

posted 19 years ago by BadWebDiver
38 replies | jump to latest

I don't know how much I'm gonna get slammed for this, but this is one case where IMHO the American remake with Brendan Fraser and Lis Hurley actually clicked better as an overall movie.

(Spolier Alert!)
I particularly remember the first wish in the American version when the desire was to be rich and powerful, and the guy ended up as a drug lord. To me that sequence was brilliantly funny. I was waiting for a scene like that to occur in this version, and nothing quite had the same comic flair and lived up to it.

Also the renaissance man sequence in the American remake worked very well - even if the guy was totally irritating (which I think was the point). It was very funny and a spot-on parody.

The pop sng scene in the British version is the closest to being that satirical - even if the music is a bit dated; Peter Cook's mod pop song is a keen parody.

Most of the other scenes, while whimiscal and eccentric, never seem to have the general laugh-out-loud comic "oomph" of the US version. The humor(sic) is far more general; and I think should hold up well even after a period of time. And admittedly Brendan Frase makes a great likeable everyman-type, Liz Hurley does have a quite keen deadpan sense of comic timing (check her out in John Cleese's documentary tv series "The Human Face" as well); and the chemistry with Brendan and Liz felt more tangible.

Don't get me wrong, I think Peter Cook & Dudley Moore were a top-class comic duo; and this movie does work mostly; (and the remake probably would not have occured if this film hadn't been made). But I still feel the US version plays better comically - and has more general universal appeal to it. And while it's not artistcally fashionable to say this these days; the more comercially oriented movie actually comunicates to an audience better and is tighter paced.

Anyway, that's my two cent's worth.

I told you over a hundred million times - STOP EXAGGERATING!!!

[–] DD-931 19 years ago

I think the Cook-Moore original is one of the funniest movies ever made, and is highly underrated. As a remake the Fraser-Hurley version doesn't hold a candle to it.

That being said, if they hadn't called the 2000 version a remake (I mean, it's simply the Faustian myth retold; they didn't HAVE to call it "Bedazzled") I wouldn't have to wade through the baggage of an American movie trying to top two legendary British comic geniuses, and I could have enjoyed the Fraser-Hurley film on it's own terms. And on it's own terms, it's a pretty funny movie with a few genuinely well-done set pieces.

I'll see your two cents and raise you two cents.

[–] BadWebDiver 19 years ago

I totally understand where you're coming from. As I said, I'm not denying that Peter Cook and Dudley Moore were (and still are) among the top class comic duos ever.

I personally totally love their art gallery sketch (re the moving bottoms); as well as the very famous "One Leg Too Few" sketch - about a movie audition for Tarzan by a one-legged actor. Priceless!

I just found Brendan Fraser and Liz Hurley to have had good chemistry in their movie, and as you said the set pieces were very good - especially the first temptation.

I told you over a hundred million times - STOP EXAGGERATING!!!

[–] sophialee04 19 years ago

First off, when I saw the 2000 Bedazzled, I loved it. I thought it was a great story, and I love Brendan Fraser as an actor. Mind you, I saw that movie before I had even read Dr. Faustus or Faust or any of that. (Way back!) I never would have even known Cook and Moore's version existed had it not been for that movie so it holds a special place on my movie shelf.

I happen to be absolutely in love with British accents and the 60s so when I saw the 1967 version I knew I had struck solid gold. I've heard a lot of comments from people who think it's dated, and I think this goes along a little bit with what you're saying. I can see where people get that idea, but I don't pay attention to it myself. The pop star bit is still as true today as it was back then.

Cook and Moore work brilliantly together, and I liked their performances better than Fraser and Hurley's, but I really can't pinpoint why. That doesn't make for much of an agrument so I'll move on.

At the time, I thought the remake's ending made more sense. Cook's devil was a nice one, and I really didn't accept that until I had seen it a couple more times. I had a major preconception that his devil was going to be the same mean, nasty thing the Devil always is. Hurley's devil probably fits the current description better and so therefore works for movie audiences nowadays. Also, the humor in the 1967 version is more subtle. There are some that like it like that, and there are others who like humor that is more open and boisterous.

It's all a matter of taste, really.

And I agree with DD-931: I think people would have been nicer to the 2000 movie if they didn't call it a remake and instead said it was an adaptation of the Faust legend. I think it's hard to top what Cook and Moore did with their film.

Can I have change back from my two cents?

[–] BadWebDiver 19 years ago

Actually, I am not really objecting to it being dated so much. I still thought the humour was great in the 60s one. Admittedly the music does show its age a bit, but I really liked both movies a great deal.

I guess I'm just in a minority (again!)for liking the American one better.

I told you over a hundred million times - STOP EXAGGERATING!!!

[–] writer-35 19 years ago

I agree that it's not productive to think of this as a remake. They are two very different films on the same subject.

I LOVED the original and was awed by the credits (Cook and Moore wrote the music, the script, played the leads, did everything but hold the mikes).

That said, Moore is not the world's greatest writer, more in the Mel Brooks league. The new version had a clever subtley to it that could go un-noticed under the glitz and bump of modern film style.

The resolution, by which the devil's contract is voided is a great piece of writing.

I don't think anybody has to apologize for liking remakes or import/remakes. Take a real, honest look at the original "Breathless" (with it's idiotic ending) versus the Richard Gere remake sometime. No comparison. The modern version is better written by a country mile, better filmed, better acted.

For that matter, would you REALLY, TRULY rather watch "The Seven Samurai" or "The Magnificent Seven"?

[–] cecilben-1 19 years ago

The Seven Samurai

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] new_rose85 18 years ago

I definately prefer the original to the remake. The newer version just leaves me cold and I don't find it funny. I like the subtlety of Peter Cook's devil far better than Liz Hurley's. It's guenuinely original, even though it may be based on Faust. I just don't think the broadness and the brendan fraserness of the newer film can compete with the witty, intelligence of Peter Cook and Dudley Moore's version. Plus I think the pop star bit is a hoot.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tarnower 18 years ago

Spoiler alert - in case you've missed this movie during the last 40 years.

Agreed. The remake completely missed the whole point of the original, which repeatedly unmasked the hypocrisy of religion. I particularly liked the end where the devil is cast out of heaven again because he did a good deed for the wrong reason (it made him feel good).

This movie has dozens of incidental lessons like the sweet old lady (unknowingly) conniving to defraud the Fruny Green Eye Wash company, or Moore as the aristocrat who's wife openly cheats on him who would be happier if she had murdered the gardener instead of "harmlessly" playing around.

Then there's the perfectly timed fateful event where Stanley's half-decent chance to seduce Margaret is spoiled by the scratched record.

Of course there's the eye rolling puns such as when the devil laments that he can't get any good sins and says "it must be the wages".

This is a movie to watch every few years at least.

[–] sd-106 11 years ago

Of course there's the eye rolling puns such as when the devil laments that he can't get any good sins and says "it must be the wages".

I just got it... *facepalm*

[–] jackmronner 11 years ago

You will remember that, as he is selling Stanley on the contract, he commits hilariously trivial mayhem such as bruising bananas, tearing out the last page of a mystery and scratching a brand new record; the latter, I always hoped, later turned up to ruin his moment. Along with the parking tickets, he seems to strive to be as omnipresent as god by suggesting that the "devil is in the details" of every little maddening thing in our lives. At least we have someone to blame. One of the funniest and most intelligent comedies ever, and I can't honestly understand how anyone could even mention its remake in the same breath. I remember sitting in a suburban theater when it came out in the U.S. (with Ms. Welch third-billed) and being shushed by people for laughing so hard at Faustian and biblical references they didn't get. It does require a certain depth to appreciate it and, without it, much of the original might seem a bit flat.

[–] tgree50 18 years ago

As far as defending the original as being superior, one need remember only two words: Julie Andrews!

[–] hauntedbyshannon 18 years ago

You should be ashamed of yourself... and never be allowed to watch a movie of quality again... PETER COOK cannot be replaced by any amount of cleveage... and Brendan Fraiser is like a bad animation... he can't act and is never funny... NEVER FUNNY!...

[–] droog69uk 18 years ago

Have to agree that the original is untouchable next to the dire remake. Not only do you see the funniest and coolest British comedy double act EVER at the height of their talents, you can also watch Peter Cook invent punk rock 10 years early with his classic brief performance as nihlistic pop singer Dremble Wedge And The Vegetation.("YOU FILL ME WITH INERTIA!!)

Cook and Moore's appearance as the Froonie Green Eye Wash men is also one of the funniest movie scenes of all time. One of the greatest British comedy movies ever.

[–] Algarveaddick 18 years ago

The original is probably my all time favourite film. No way is the remake as good, but I did enjoy it, and agree with the poster who said they should just have called it something else.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] leonfairhurst 18 years ago

Nothing could improve on those bouncing/jumping nuns they were so bizzare it was like a scene out of the original Avengers, sheer brilliance.

Cry God for Harry, England and St George

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] midnightrunner 18 years ago

Yep, you got slammed, badweb.

Sorry to say, but I don't agree with you. I respect your tastes and opinions, but I prefer the original.

[–] patchofblue65 18 years ago

You gotta be kidding. The original is the best. Dudley Moore, Peter Cook are ten times better than Brendan Fraser and Elizabeth Hurley. You can't improve on the original. Most American remakes are terrible anyways. Just my opinion though...

[–] EmeriV 18 years ago

I don't know if you are American but you sound like one. Despite Python etc success, subtle, intelligent British comedy does seem to be lost on Americans and people who sound like them. The new film like nearly every other American film is formulaic and moronically 'funny' in an obvious, unintelligent way. Culture and style and mindboggling wit, which Cook and Moore so effortlessly exude will always far surpass boneheads and airheads like Brendan Fraser and Liz Hurley.

[–] defrostindoors 18 years ago

One brilliant, understated moment: Cook and Moore raiding the old lady's kitchen. Moore has a long spoon, harking back to the old proverb "When you sup with the devil, use a long spoon" http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/28/messages/1049.html

It's a wonderful, throwaway bit that the movie never stoops to explain; it assumes the audience is clever enough to appreciate it.

[–] phuquit 18 years ago

I agree that the original is by far the better version, but the remake ain't too bad. I prefer to see the remake as a slightly inferior sequal. It works as one.