Lame-o remake. Why? It's not the stars' fault as they are trying to deliver. This one I fault a) the script - so much potentially evil, snide fun passed by in order to be safe and middle-of-the-road. b) the casting director - simply the wrong choices as the leads and finally, c) the director, Harold Ramis, who could've watched the first version and used new and better tech to deliver a truly conniving, wicked demon (ala Al Pacino - its a lot to ask but still), upped the ante some, which'd've improved the comedy. Stick with the first one instead.

Without Brendan Fraser playing all of his wacky characters in his "Wish Universes," the movie would have fallen flat on it's face, but his acting, along with some funny moments are really all the film has going for it. Once the first half concludes, we keep getting more of the same until the "touchy-feely" type of moments pass before the credits role. The direction the film takes is fine, the character arches are all present, the acting is fine, and the premise, albeit ridiculous, is acceptable. I could think of a million comedies to watch before this, but there wasn't anything that I hated about it. It's a shrug your shoulders and walk away type of film! "Bedazzled" is fine television substance!