If you read all three reviews of Bewitched in Friday’s A&E ^[1], you just might end up befuddled.

From the review ^[2] of the trailer (wha…when did we start reviewing trailers?):

In a just world, no career would’ve survived “Michael.” the catastrophic flop with John Travolta playing an angel (complete with wings.)

Capsule version: It’s gonna blooow (with a hat tip to Jon Stewart).

From the review of the movie itself ^[3]:

“Bewitched,” a sort-of adaptation of the popular 1960s TV series, is a terrible, terrible movie. Its creators have a swell idea at the core, a wonderful leading lady, and several stalwart comic players in support, and they make of all of that a picture with the wit of an armpit fart, the verve of a boxwood shrub, and the appeal of a long night in an ER waiting room.

Capsule version: It really really blooows.

But what’s this, from the Movie Guide for Parents (a capsule review from the Washington Post writers group)?

Clever people have put a spell on this sparkly, refreshingly off-center re-imagining of the 1964-72 TV series.

Capsule version: It’s ‘beguiling’!

Me? I’m just bemoaning the beef-witted decision to run three reviews of the same movie in the same supplement – not to mention befuddled at the lack of continuity.

A&E?-Finis
Your chance-finis
The strain that invades my brain-finis
Bewitched, bothered and bewildered no more.

(With profuse apologies to Rodgers & Hart ^[4] for the bastardization…)