mathou_gdk I saw this movie because of Jennifer Love Hewitt (she's so cute!), but, well, maybe i shouldn't have. It isn't exactly boring, but it isn't interesting neither.It's not the worst movie ever, it has some great ideas but they're not as exploited as they could have been, the acting is decent (except for Alec Baldwin who just overdoes it).If you don't have anything better to do (or to watch), well, it will keep you busy for an hour and a half... But maybe you'd better check Bedazzled out, it's way more funny than Shortcut to Happiness ! (PS: Sorry if I made some syntax or spelling mistakes, i'm french)

dukane24 I had high hopes for it when I heard that it was being made back in 2001 because I read "The Devil and Daniel Webster" when I was a kid and I found it very interesting. They made some changes to the story that don't make much sense to me. Daniel Webster in the story was a famous lawyer from New Hampshire in the story. In the movie he is an editor. A lawyer makes more sense since he ends up representing Jabez Stone against the devil him/herself (he was a man in the story, but was a woman in the movie) in a trial where both of their souls are on the line. As an editor, it doesn't seem likely that Daniel Webster would have the skill to do this.The acting was decent by all except for Alec Baldwin and Dan Aykroyd. These are two actors that I like, they just did an awful job in this movie. It was as though they thought they were acting in a comedy, but the movie was more a serious one than a comedy. This might be partly due to the fact that the movie was filmed with a particular vision in mind, and was then re-edited by somebody else. Given this fact, it's surprising that it was at all coherent. I was surprised to see a fair amount of SNL cast members in the movie, which further leads me to believe it may have originally been filmed with the intention of it being more of a comedy.All in all I would have to say it wasn't completely awful, but it wasn't much good. If I could get the hour and a half back and do something else with it, I would. The ending was especially disappointing. As in the original story, Daniel Webster defeats the devil in the trial. Jabez then starts out again at the beginning of the movie...literally, we are just brought back to the first scene with Jabez, and then the movie abruptly ends. It actually looked as though they just replayed Jabez' first scene over and called it the end. There is no indication that Jabez has the benefit of any of the knowledge or experience he gained, so who is to say he didn't just repeat his mistakes over again, and perhaps over and over in an endless loop? It was an extremely disappointing end and did not make a lot of sense. The decent cast, and the acting of everyone except for Baldwin and Aykroyd are the only things that keep this from being a complete and total crap sandwich.

edwinafh 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

Sean Daniel When I first saw The Devil and Daniel Webster I was in amazement of how good it was. I was thinking about it for a long time after and when I got to watch it recently on a DVD, it made me think about it all over again but this time raises some questions.I didn't find it as good the second time round since the time that I first saw it but in the recent viewing I was paying more attention than before. I still think Alec Baldwin was maybe not right as Jabez Stone. He has some good moments but I think he has to many moments where he is trying to act is ass off and making it look obvious. Is it me or in some scenes where Baldwin is talking he sounds kind of goofy and over the top. Just a thought.Anthony Hopkins was perfect as Daniel Webster but again, isn't he always? Whatever shortfalls his film has, Hopkins makes up for it in his charm and charisma which he tackles head on easily throughout the movie.The best acting we get here is from Dan Akroyd and Jennifer Love but especially Hewitt, which is no surprise to me considering how well she has done in some of her previous films. The story doesn't really kick off till the very end where everything unfolds very fast to an entertaining climax which without this film would have failed badly. I don't know much about producer Michael Z. Gordon's previous work except with the good film "Narc", but I am impressed with how he handled this film.