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.

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.

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.

Wealth. Power. Admiration. They all sound pretty enticing. Indeed many people spend their life in pursuit of these or similar goals and are willing to sacrifice anything and everything in the process. But what if there was an easy way to do it, say, selling your soul? You're not really using it anyways. As the saying goes, the day I decided to do it there'd probably be a glut on the market. Jabez Stone is, for lack of a better word, a loser. Trying to write a novel and watch a friend pass him by makes him even more angry because "I am a better writer than him!" While lamenting his lot in life he casually mentions that he would give anything to have a successful novel. Enter the Princess of Darkness, stage left. Although the basics between this movie and the 1941 classic of the same name are similar, there are so many differences (styles of humor, characters, plot, etc) that comparisons are pointless. So I won't even try. "Devil" offers something so few fantasies do these days without relying on endless juvenile scatological humor. I thoroughly enjoyed the transformation that Jabez goes through as he realizes he made a big mistake. Jabez soon discovers that when dealing with the devil - surprise, surprise - nothing is, as it seems. I have always liked Alec Baldwin since I saw him in "The Marrying Man". Since then, he has proved himself capable of doing both serious ("The Cooler") and comedy roles ("Beetle Juice"). With this part he shows just how versatile he is and does so admirably. Jennifer Love Hewitt is deliciously wicked in a role that she was born to play (if reports about her are true) and it appears that she enjoyed herself. Her spin on the ultimate temptress is hilarious and personally, I'll take red-haired vixens over horny (or is that "horned") guys any day. Anthony Hopkins, brings the same verve and versatility that he always displays without going over the top. The supporting cast provides the finishing touch rounding out the film nicely. I really enjoyed this film.

I happened to be looking at the reviews and noticed one blatantly negative comment from an editor who worked on the original trailer for this film. I too saw the original version and it did leave a lot to be desired. However, there were two more versions, one after Baldwin abandoned ship and the last one just before it was sold to Bob Yari. I can definitely say that the final cut -- which is the one that's coming out next year -- is by far the best!!! The latest version is a half hour shorter and a great editing job by whoever did the work. Anothony Hopkins was called in to do some extra voice-overs and the end result is that this film really rocks!! There's a great song that was written by one of the producers of the film (Michael Gordon) which I hope they use for the opening song. You can listen to the song and see lots of stuff about this film at mowefilms.com. This is a classic story which won an Academy Award back in the 40's and I think it's got a shot at "Best Song" or "Best Screenplay" if it comes out in the theaters at the right time. Anyway, see the film and judge for yourself. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

I also saw this movie at the Naples Film Festival. I disagree with the other comments that Cattrell and Baldwin were good or great. They were the worst of the cast. I couldn't figure out if Catrell was really such a bad actress or if she was acting as a bad actress. I can't stand Baldwin on general principle. Hopkins, and surprisingly Hewitt, were great! The bedroom scene wasn't that bad and is cute when it reveals something about Hewitt. The story has been told dozens of times before under different names. This isn't the best version but it's worth seeing, especially since Baldwin has removed his name and association with it. Edwina

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.

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 ****

This movie was an utter piece of trash. it only scraped the surface of such a classical topic and one that many people have pondered upon for all eternity. and while at it, not only did it not offer no new points, but i felt it took all seriousness and gravity off it. the characters: underdevelped, the action: sloppy and head-titled. the use of slow motion: childish. an awful movie. the end.

This gem of a movie will probably not be a blockbuster when it finally is released. The storyline, which has been used many times before and most people will consider that a negative, could be summed up as, "everyone deserves to get a second chance to appreciate what you've got". Nevertheless, this is a classic story and it has all the ingredients to make this an interesting film. This must be the sort of movie that every good actor and actress would love to have a role in as the screenplay has been written by an accomplished screenwriter. It is a farcical melodrama rather than a comedy but nonetheless highly enjoyable. It has a wonderful cast and it was well-acted so I'm not sure I could ask for more. All in all, I heartily recommend this film.