I just saw the original version of Bedazzled. My question is who makes a better devil, Peter Cook or Elizabeth Hurley. Both have their merits, but I feel Hurley is much easier on the eyes. Although as the horned one can change his (her) appearance to anything, as the situation warrants.
shareI saw the original many years ago - long before the remake and thought it was hilarious.
Over the years I've watched it a few times and found that once you know the story plot it is hard to get a good laugh out of the Cook-Moore version.
Whereas the original is carried primarily by the premise, the new version is carried by the acting.
In the new version, Brendan’s “intellectual” was pretty boring – too talky to be funny. It just went on and on. And that is the trouble with Moore’s version of almost all the characters/wishes – too talky and too boring.
But Fraser is a riot in almost all the other wishes; especially the "sensitive guy" and the "jock". Those portrayals were so over the top that you can’t help rolling on the floor as you waited for the “ol sun to go down” or to see Brendan’s reaction when the towel finally came off.
I think it may be a cultural thing as to which one of these you appreciate. I've just watched the two, back to back, and found the Peter Cook version much funnier. In fact, I made it through less than an hour of the remake before wanting to switch it off.
Brendan Frazer is clever and all, and a much more versatile actor than Dudley Moore, but there's nothing subtle or surprising about this remake. I really don't laugh at comedy that hollers "THIS IS FUNNY!!" in your face (even when it tries to do it in Funny Voices). My response is: No, it's really not. (And this 2nd version really isn't helped by the fact that, while Liz Hurley is stunning to look at, extraordinarily so -- as if that had anything at all to do with making the role work -- she simply can't act. Her every line sounded like she was reciting it as closely as she could to the way the director told her to.)
Maybe it's a case of comedy styles. I personally love wry, absurdist British comedy, but find I frequently dislike modern US comedy, which I often feel is obvious and over-emphasised and telegraphed waaaay ahead, which just gets irritating.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
well Liz is hotter...
shareI've just watched the original version and I have to say that Liz Hurley's comic timing seemed far better than Peter Cook's (which makes no *beep* sense! I know!)
sharePeter Cook & Dudley Moore were a very successful comedy duo who carried their Pete n Dud routine into this film.
Liz Hurley was a model trying to act.
Peter Cook. He may not have been the world's best actor but he at least had personality as George Spiggot aka Satan. Hurley brings all the acting ability and personality of a cardboard cutout to her version.
"The hour is come but not the man"
That's odd, since I thought Hurley had much more personality in her role, not least due to her far improved comic timing from the original.
Also, the lack of rape jokes was nice...
That's odd, since I thought Hurley had much more personality in her role, not least due to her far improved comic timing from the original.
Oh yeah, I forgot. Hurley also has all the comic timing of a stunned slug. Thanks, fats.
Also, the lack of rape jokes was nice...
Oh, I dunno. A joke would have been nice. Any joke.
"The hour is come but not the man"
Sorry.. Hurley is HOT.. But part of what made the original work was how Cooke and Moore were as a team. If they are just standing still mute, Hurley wins. Otherwise though.
shareJulie Andrews
share