A tale of good witches and bad scripts

Bewitched (2005)
Columbia Pictures presents a Nora Ephron film, starring Will Ferrell and Nicole Kidman. Written by Nora and Delia Ephron. 102m. PG-13 for some language, including sex and drug references and partial nudity.

1.5 stars

My biggest problem these days is that I don’t listen to my own good advice.

In last month’s review of “Kicking & Screaming,” I tried to break things off with comedian Will Ferrell. I longed to avoid a daunting queue of eight Ferrell films in 12 months. But I found his routines to be the weapons of a merciless temptress and I was unmistakably lured back by his promise not to let me down anymore.

I realize now that was only a mirage, a smoke-and-mirrors effort to booster my nostalgia for a 1970s television show and plant me firmly front and center for the retread-of-the-week, “Bewitched.”

If you caught any of the 254 episodes of the original television series, you’ll be sorely disappointed by the feature film adaptation. It does score points, however, for creating a universe where the original show is common knowledge.

How’s this for a metatextual nightmare? The original TV show, which existed in our non-fictional world, was of course fictional. It had real actors playing fictional roles. Now we have real actors playing fictional characters who take on fictional roles on a fictional television show that exists in their non-fictional realm, but what we know to be actually a fictional existence.

The retooled show will be a vehicle for Jack Wyatt (Will Ferrell), a once A-list actor who is considered box office poison after starring in a series of bombs (think Nick Nolte in 1994, when the once highly-regarded thespian churned out “I’ll Do Anything,” “I Love Trouble” and “Blue Chips”). Wyatt’s dream - with a bit of coercion from slimy manager Ritchie (Jason Schwartzman) - is for the new “Bewitched” to focus on Darren, not his witch wife, Samantha.

Of course, that idea - even by a fictional character - is extremely short-sighted. After all, Darren was embodied by two different actors during the original series’ eight year run and hardly any senses were offended by the abrupt change.
The true star always will be Samantha (in this version, Nicole Kidman), a mischievous, but good-hearted witch who liked to keep things interesting. The modern “Bewitched” chucks us another curveball about our 21st century Samantha: she’s actually a real, honest-to-goodness witch.

This revelation is made quite early in the film; the script could have then explored issues of predetermination and fate in a lighthearted way. But this script was trashed by the Ephron sisters, whose idea of modern romance - if boxed and sold - would come complete with a patented cookie cutter. What, Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan weren’t available to go through the motions, Nora and Delia?

The only redeeming storyline, which is grossly undervalued, is that Samantha has begun a love/hate relationship with her powers of provocation. She has joined the real world to seek the truth and find true love, not something she manufactured by middling in others’ affairs.

Quitting the all-powerful attitude cold turkey is a bit of a challenge, no doubt made harder by doubting father, Nigel (Michael Caine). In the witch’s world, he tells us, shows like “Bewitched” are seen as the ultimate perversion. Wait, that means there’s another reality that runs parallel to this one...excuse me, my brain is full now.

Isabel is quite content playing Samantha, until she recognizes that Jack is haughtily trying to place himself as the center of attention. She vows revenge and, as only witches can do, transforms Jack into a love-sick freak whose new modus operandi is making Isabel the star of the show.

This is problematic, because Ferrell had been, until this point, quite understated in his role. Now the witchy hijinks have upped the ante so that he’s, in essence, cranked up to 11. Instead of amusing, I was annoyed by a Ferrell who cranks out 1980s arena rock power ballads off-key to express his infatuation with Isabel.

Of course what everyone seems to be overlooking is the fact that the ensemble approach was the main draw to the original series. We’ve got our own supporting characters, but they’re slammed together like misfit jigsaw pieces. A late addition of Uncle Arthur is merely an excuse to give “Daily Show” regular Steve Carell a little face time. And Shirley MacLaine is wasted in her first on-screen appearance in over two years, as a witch/actress who assumes the role of Endora for the show. I could almost see the mistake of casting a real witch for one part, but two?

Movie producers are shaking their heads at the lowest box office figures in two decades, wondering what exactly is going wrong. These fat cats have exploited us at every turn, churning out time-tested product that exploits our nostalgia.
Last week it was “Herbie: Fully Loaded” which hasn’t been a viable pitch in three decades and “Batman Begins” (which admittedly excellent), a franchise which was overexposed by a series of ho-hum efforts in the 1990s. Last month, we had another “Star Wars” film; the month before, another comic book adaptation. One more month previous, a sequel and a update/remake of a classic film.

The bottom line has been corrupted; no one wants to dare and lose their shirt. So people like Nora and Delia Ephron - who, yes, have written competent romantic comedies before - are continually employed to rehash anything that can have a $20 million opening.

You win, “Bewitched” producers. I guess the joke’s on us.