Arthur (I) (2011) User Reviews

A Brand new Arthur

[jamesebsmith · 7/10 · 11 December 2011]

Being a fan of Dudley and the original movie, I started watching this with some trepidation, probably ready to unleash criticism at the slightest weakness. You soon, however, realise that this is a completely different take on the idea and I had the feeling that everyone was perhaps trying a little too hard to be funny. There was certainly some snappy dialogue and it was a colourful, slushy experience that didn't succumb to my notoriously low boredom threshold.

Overall, a lot of fun, despite some slightly nervy acting in places and a few scripting issues. Not laugh out loud like dear old Dudley, but an admirable attempt when you consider just how good the original was.

Take Arthur for 2011 not 1981

[jburton395 · 5/10 · 12 April 2011]

The original Arthur, was and is a great film. It was funny, well written and well acted. It garnered 4 Oscar nominations and 2 wins. It won 4 out of 5 Golden Globes. John Gielgud so deserved his award so well that year. Dudley Moore, in the title character, had the same lovable charm that Russel Brand has in this remake. But, there are several things missing which make the 2011 version an OK film, and not a part of cinema awards. First, its 2011 and not 1981. The original version would never be made today. Plain and simple. Arthur was a drunk. A hard drinker, who fell down, slurred words,and yes, even was driving drunk in several scenes. No way would that get approved today, or anyone think it was funny. It was this funny drunk that made Dudley's Arthur so much fun, even though today we would rush for interventions or rehab. Second, the director forgot this is a New York film. It is set in New York, but so much changed from one film to the other that the setting was indifferent here. No more neighborhood bars, dinners, landmark shopping sites, or eateries. There is one really good scene involving Grand Central, but it does not make up for the lack in the rest of the film. Linda becomes Naomi in the new film. She is not a New Yorker. Does not look like one, or act like one. She plays the part well, but its just not the same. Again, this remake could be set anywhere. Can you imagine the original anywhere but NY! Third, as good as Helen Mirrim is, she is not the Hobson that John Gielgud presented. She will not get any awards for this presentation. So, if you do not make any comparisons, you will like the film, but most likely not fall in love with it for 30 years. The film is well acted, written in parts, but it steals one lines too much from the original, that just seemed forced here or are not well placed. Whereas we see Arthur drink, he never really seems drunk. The relationship with Hobson is presented as a mother/son, rather than father/son. It was hard to believe in the relationship as much as the previous film. The chemistry between Arthur and Naomi was believable and flow very well throughout the film. Susan Johnson, played by Jennifer Garner had much more of a role here than the original. It needed to be reverted back. It was just not funny. Lastly, Nick Nolte was just plain horrible and nasty. He could have been written out completely. It made no sense for plot development. So, the new Arthur is as an OK remake, but not as good as it could have been.

Do yourself a favor -- rent the original instead

[reddpill · 6/10 · 6 April 2011]

Was this remake horrible? No, but it also wasn't that great. In only a couple of scenes did this film lift itself above mediocrity. In comparing this update to the 1981 version, the original is simply better on every point. Russell Brand is probably the best choice they could make for the lead, but he doesn't measure up to Dudley Moore's Arthur. And the wonderful Helen Mirren does her best, but she just can't match John Gielgud's witty portrayal of Hobson. The writing fell particularly short of the mark. The one bright spot for me was Greta Gerwig, whom I had not previously seen. She did a fine job of making a thinly-written character become real. I look forward to seeing her in the future.

Surprisingly likable reworking

[amesmonde · 23 January 2012]

A drunken playboy stands to lose a wealthy inheritance unless he marries a woman he doesn't like, meanwhile he falls for tour guide that his family doesn't approve of.

Entertaining comedy in which Russell Brand surprisingly comes across more lovable that Dudley Moores original incarnation. There are some genuine funny scenes notably with a magnetic bed, children's store, the Batmobile getting pulled over (yes, really) and when Arthur goes nail gun happy with future father-in-law Burt Johnson perfectly played by Nick Nolte.

The realistic sets, New York setting including Grand Central Station act as interesting backdrop that director Jason Winer full utilises. Greta Gerwig as the love interest Naomi Quinn is on likable form while Jennifer Garner refreshingly goes against all American girl typecast as socialite Susan Johnson. Evander Holyfield, Luis Guzmán and Geraldine James Geraldine James put in an appearances. Helen Mirren's Hobson is touchingly portrayed and Mirren steals the show with her grounded and humanistic performance.

Overall the story stinks of countless 80's rom-coms but Arthur is entertaining nonetheless due to its nostalgic yet contemporary reworking and Russels' engaging tongue-tied performance.

Enjoy the movie for what it is rather than comparing to the original

[DarthRaen · 6/10 · 9 April 2011]

People go to the movies for a variety of reasons. Watching Arthur for it's contributions to the world of cinema is probably not the reason to spend your $10.If you want a light comedy which entertains you, then I'd say the film definitely succeeds. But, if you take things seriously and attempt to critique the movie,well it might be better if you rent something from the Venice Film Festival instead. Arthur is made with a view to entertaining it's viewers and does a pretty good job of it,IMHO (but hey, a packed theatre of people laughing would not mean anything,right?) What would average movie goers know about the movies?

Russel Brand doesn't attempt to copy Dudley Moore's role- he presents a rather brattish rework to take into today's age and times.Helen Mirren is delightful-every 30 yr old would love to have her as a nanny:) You find yourself rooting for Arthur turning himself around to end up with this girl he loves Naomi(Greta Gerwig)

Though it doesn't live up to the original, it lives up to my expectations.

[Christian_Dimartino · 7/10 · 20 August 2011]

I really loved the 80's romantic comedy Arthur for many reasons. Its premise was sweet, the characters were all likable, and Dudley Moore was just brilliant. So, when I heard last year about a remake starring Russell Brand I knew it wouldn't be as good as the original, but with Brand as Arthur I knew it would be enjoyable. And thats just what it is.

The premise remains the same. Arthur(Brand) is a drunken playboy millionaire who is told by his mother that he has to marry Susan(Jennifer Gardener) otherwise she will stop giving him money, which he obviously doesn't want. So, when he meets Naomi(Greta Gerwig), he has to choose between the money or the love.

Arthur has its funny moments. It also has some of the charm that made the first one so wonderful. But the thing that I enjoyed most was that it wasn't word for word, scene for scene like the original. They changed certain things up.

There are certain things that I wish would've remained the same. I wish that Susan could've been more likable. You know she's bad from the start. But in the original she was innocent. She wasn't a total wacko, unlike Gardener's character. I also like the small similarities, and the big ones.

But I did enjoy some of the differences. I like how they went out of their way to make it different. Such as Hobson being a woman(originally played by John Giugland now played by Hellen Mirren), and the fact that the mom is the one threatening Arthur, not his dad.

Though Brand isn't quite Dudley Moore, he still does a good job. He was born to fill in the shoes. I just wish he got drunk more.Moore's drunk moments stole the show. Gerwig is a delightful star, and i'm glad to see her do more. The two have wonderful chemistry.

So, the new Arthur isn't perfect, but its a charming and funny remake that doesn't go down in infamy.I mean, most remakes blow. But Arthur works because its not a total retread. I say see it as soon as possible. Din't believe what you hear. Brand, Mirren, and Gerwig will make your afternoon a good one.

B

Just didn't see the point to it

[TheLittleSongbird · 2/10 · 1 May 2011]

I don't jump on the bandwagon of immediately hating on a remake as there are some great ones out there. I watched the Arthur remake as I do like Helen Mirren a lot and I personally don't mind Russell Brand. But I was hesitant too as to me the trailer didn't wow me over, I didn't laugh once, and by the end of last week I was starting to get annoyed at Offenbach's Can Can(a fun piece especially to dance and sing along to but can get on your nerves sometimes depending on the time and place) being played for the hundredth time.

Arthur wasn't for me quite the abomination that I heard it was, but in all honesty I didn't see much point to it. It is better than the Psycho and Wicker Man remakes both of which almost made me lose the will to live, but for a good remake look towards The Thief of Baghdad, The Magnificent Seven and especially The Thing. If I were to compare this to the 1981 film, the 1981 film is much better being very funny and charming and I actually preferred the much-maligned-but(in my opinion)-better-than-its-reputation sequel over this too.

I will get the good things out of the way. I did like very much how the film looked and the location shooting is very striking and the soundtrack is infectious. But here come the many negatives. While I admire that Arthur tried to stick faithfully to the original film, I think there are times when it tries too hard and it comes off as being too faithful. Except here while there was wit, fun and charm in the original and in its sequel, there is not enough of that here, the severe letdown that is the ending pretty much epitomises this. The script is often unfunny and juvenile, severely lacking in the acidity and drollness that worked so well before, and the gags are really quite weak, predictable and poorly timed.

I don't mind a movie where it has moments of predictability, a lot of movies do, but it does bother me when there are too many moments throughout where it is. That is the case with Arthur, and I can't count the number of times where I was saying to myself "now where have I seen this before". Again, I don't mind when a movie show little or nothing new, but the difference is Arthur in the end didn't make me overlook that because it was lacking in charm.

The direction is rather poor as well, often rushed and smug, and there were times where I felt there should be more time to breathe. And there are some moments where there is little or no humour that are really quite dull. The acting overall fares little better. I have to say though Russell Brand did have very big shoes to fill and he does do an admirable job trying to convey some spontaneous cheeky charm. The problem is not only is his material unfunny and dreadfully weak but his titular character clichéd and unlikeable. Arthur in the original was clichéd in a way but I found as the film progressed you warmed to him, here I grew tired of him.

I cannot deny that Greta Gerwig is talented, but she too is ill-served with her material. She has no snappy lines, no funny joke, no witty gag to write home about, so overall it was the pretty-but-bland acting performance. I'd say the same for Jennifer Garner as well, and also that her frothy acting style didn't entirely work within the tone and style of the film. I was most saddened about Helen Mirren, bless her she tries so hard, but in the John Gielgud role she can't do anything with her lines, she has some decent delivery but there is none of the droll and acidic quality in the one-liners to go the extra mile. Then there are talented actors such as Nick Nolte and Geraldine James who are largely wasted.

All in all, not an abomination but pointless. 2/10 Bethany Cox

Surprisingly good.

[Bruce722 · 7/10 · 15 April 2012]

I absolutely despise Russell Brand so naturally I assumed that I would not like this movie one bit. That, however, was not at all the case. Sure, the movie started with Brand's typical ridiculous antics and obnoxiousness but it turned out to be quite entertaining. Brand, for once, was able to actually make the transition from ridiculous idiot to still idiotic but also charming with his humor. Also, Helen Mirren stole the movie. She is truly something else. I don't think I'd be alone in saying she is one of the premier actresses in Hollywood. Her character's dry humor but strength and caring shined through perfectly and was the highlight of the film. Garner and Gerwig's characters are also pretty interesting. Garner doesn't really step outside the box with this performance but it was still solid. I was pleasantly surprised with Gerwig though. I had never seen her in a meaningful role and she was very solid in portraying her emotions. All in all the movie was just a pretty good film and it was definitely worth watching.

How can anyone think this is a movie worth watching?

[gbraver · 2/10 · 28 December 2013]

Comedies should be fun. Sometimes they can deviate from reality but the whole premise of this movie is absurd.

Arthur was just a totally unbelievable character. Maybe it was brand, maybe it was the script, maybe it was the director. It doesn't matter. If we don't believe Arthur could ever be a real person then we will never have the connection that is needed for a movie to succeed

Perhaps the people who find torture and sadism entertaining could rate this movie highly but for the majority of the human population they will find this a piece of trash. I am just surprised that this movie with the deridingly unfunny revised script was ever released.

Not worth an academy award...But not terrible.

[nathanhmcdonald · 7/10 · 9 October 2011]

Arthur ''Russell Brand'' is about the title character Arthur Bach. Arthur is a 40ish alcoholic ultra-rich playboy who lives' by no one's rules but his own. Arthur may be a 40 year old man on the exterior, but underneath he's an insolent 13 year old at best. His wealth was not earned but he none the less has access to seemingly unlimited funds via his family's business.

After Arthurs shenanigans get to much publicity for the family business his mother gives him the ultimatum of either marrying a rude woman who only wants a stake in his family's business. Or simply being thrown out on his butt with no more wealth. The choice to be made is a long and hard one...Which is only made even harder when Arthur meets Naomi, a cute lower middle class girl who works as an unlicensed tour guide. Arthur falls head over heels for her and goes about making a relationship with her...Only to later have it ruined.

...Anyway...I don't want to describe the whole movie here for you...But that's the premise. Arthur is a good watch, Its not great and many will argue it doesn't do the original justice...But it is entertaining and worthy of a few good laughs. Don't cut this movie short just because someone on the internet says it's not as good as it should be. Give it a chance. It's an alright comedy.

Pathetic

[Rectangular_businessman · 1/10 · 17 April 2013]

I just can't stand this stupid (and also terribly unfunny) movie.

I never saw the original film in which this (supposedly) inspired, but I'm sure that it was much better than this drivel, since at least the original "Arthur" from the eighties didn't the incredibly annoying Russell Brand for the main role.

Russell Brand is just another Rob Schneider: A talentless and unfunny comedian who only appears in bad movies.

This movie was painfully unfunny and incredibly poorly made, being a complete torture to watch from beginning to end. None of the jokes made laugh, and most of them were quite irritating, to say the least.

Honestly, this is one of the worst movies that I've seen in my entire life, and I can't believe that it is rated so high, considering how bad it was.

0/10 (And I would rate with a negative score if I could)

Arthur was a good movie, coming from someone who hasn't seen the original

[rob-a-mcclellan · 8/10 · 10 April 2011]

Let me start this off by saying that I have never seen the original Arthur. There is also no sense in me going over the plot or the differences between this and the original because that is covered in so many different reviews and I am guessing this isn't the only review that you will read. I am 29 years old and I wouldn't even consider myself a Russell Brand fan but after seeing this movie that is starting to change.

I went into Arthur with an open mind. I did not have another movie to compare it to, since I didn't see the original, and I throughly enjoyed the movie. Russell Brand was OK in 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall' and I really didn't enjoy his movie "Get Him to the Greek" but Arthur was a different type of comedy compared to his typical work. The best thing I can compare this movie to is "The Wedding Singer". Not because of the plot or the actors but because "The Wedding Singer" put Adam Sandler in a slightly toned down more caring/romantic version of things had done before. There was less slap stick and I actually ended up liking Adam Sandler more because of it. The same can be said about Arthur. This isn't OVER THE TOP Russell Brand like most of his other movies. I wouldn't say it's 'down to earth' Russell Brand either, more like some place in between.

Even if you have seen the original try to go to see this movie and not compare it to the original. It's the same as The Dark Knight vs Batman with Michael Keaton. Both were good movies but you couldn't really compare them.

What surprised me at the end of the movie was my brother (32 years old) saying he actually liked this better than the original, which he watched last weekend. He said the one liners were better and Russell Brand made a more convincing drunk. My guess is because Russell is probably always this drunk when he isn't filming movies!

Arthur made me laugh out loud, which is something I typically don't do. The story was decent (typical romantic comedy) and even though the movie slowed down about 3/4 of the way in, it had to because of the story. Do yourself a favor and see this movie at some point. It doesn't have to be in the theater since there aren't any eye popping sound effects or state of the art 3D in it...(though the city of New York was a GORGEOUS back drop)

Go see it. Turn your brain off for a bit and enjoy the movie for what it is. Don't compare it to the original but compare it to the other things Russell has done and you will see that he might actually have a great future at comedy ahead of him.

Final Verdict: 8 out of 10

Ah, remakes & sequels, Hollywood's mixed bag, this one has its moments but fails to impress

[inkblot11 · 6/10 · 8 June 2013]

Arthur (Russell Brand) is as rich as they come, being the sole heir to a fortune built by his late father's very successful conglomeration. Yet, he is an alcoholic and a skirt-chaser supreme, going from party to bedroom to party again. The only person to stand by him and clean up the messes he creates is his longtime nanny, Hobson (Helen Mirren) who has been with him since childhood. In contrast, he has little contact with his actual, widowed mother (Geraldine James) who still runs the company. This is by choice. However, because Arthur is supposedly the one who will eventually helm the biz, his continual antics are scaring the stock holders more and more. So, mama lays down the law. Either Arthur marries a bright, rising businesswoman in their corporation, Susan (Jennifer Garner) or he will be cut off without a penny. Susan actually wants the wedding herself, for she fancies becoming the CEO in the near future. Needless to say, Arthur hates the idea but loves his money. Things get even more complicated when Art meets a penniless young beauty, Naomi (Greta Gerwig) who does inspire him to be a better person and who makes his heart go flippety-flop. Yet, a marriage to this struggling artist would result in the same excommunication. What's a poor little rich boy, er, man to do? Ah, the Hollywood remake rears its somewhat not-so-handsome head again. The original Arthur, with Dudlay Moore, Sir John Gielgud and Liza Minelli is still a funny charmer. Gielgud took home that famous golden statuette for his surprising comic turn, after a lifetime of more serious work. Here, the cast is fine as well, with Brand, Mirren, Garner, Gerwig, Nick Nolte, James, Luis Guzman and more. Brand could be viewed as the weakest link of the crew, for he is sometimes comical, sometimes annoying. But, alas, although they all try hard and are talented professionals, the material is not as funny or charming as the original. That's a shame, for the film looks great, with notable art direction, sets, costumes, et cetera. If you are stuck at home on the weekend, singing along to Sam Cooke's famous "Another Saturday Night and I Ain't Got Nobody", this film is okay entertainment. But, what kind of endorsement is that, really?

Dudley must have turned over in his grave

[jordan2240 · 2/10 · 17 April 2011]

Went to see this because my fiancé thought the previews were funny. Admittedly, the previews I had seen made it look funny as well, but I had read some critical reviews, and wasn't enthusiastic. As it turned out, the critics were right, and I applaud the marketing geniuses who were actually able to make "Arthur" look even remotely entertaining. Brand, who I usually like, was nothing better than annoying, and he might have been the best one in the cast. The dialog was silly in parts and completely corny in others, the premise was poorly executed, and the six people at the showing I attended never let out anything more than a slight giggle from time to time, probably out of embarrassment for the performers more than anything else.

On the plus side, if my fiancé ever criticizes any of my cinematic choices, I can remind her of this tripe. That ought to put an end to that conversation.

Pleasantly Witty

[JohnDeSando · 7 April 2011]

"I have very poor and unhappy brains for drinking." Shakespeare's Othello

Russell Brand may not be as convincing a drunk as Dudley Moore in the original Arthur, but Brand makes the titular man-child as endearing as he could be given the premise of the comedy. Writer Peter Baynham brings some of the manic madness and tossed-off lines of Bruno to complement Brand's physicality for a pleasantly witty if not totally amusing satire of the idle rich.

Helen Mirren does well as his butler, Hobson, a middle-aged Mary Poppins, although decidedly darker. (Sir John Gielgud in the original would be tough to imitate.) Their relationship substitutes very nicely, thank you, for the lack of one between Arthur and his real mother (an effectively stiff Geraldine James). Her demand that he marry the social-climbing Susan (Jennifer Garner) or be disinherited is the romantic setup for him falling in love with "nobody" Naomi (Greta Gerwig). "Setup" for such set pieces as a deserted Grand Central Terminal with a "Pez" candy dinner and acrobats, a not terribly funny exhibition of Arthur's childlike charm.

I was greatly amused by the homage to Hitchcock, Rear Window specifically, when Arthur looks from his tub with golden binoculars at pedestrians who remind him of pop cult figures, some wittily chosen to resemble those close to him such as Hobson.

One of the small lessons of the film is that true love should be the reason for marriage, and more importantly AA is an effective solution for drinking problems. The film, after all, is about an immature rich man's discovering his inner man through sobriety. Doesn't sound that romantic, does it? Well, it isn't, even though the characters are enviably happy in the process, as is this movie-going experience.

"A very merry, dancing, drinking, laughing, quaffing, and unthinking time." John Dryden, the Secular Masque

Does everyone lack a sense of humor?

[d_mcnabbmvp · 7/10 · 27 June 2011]

I don't understand all the negative reviews, while I haven't seen the original, I thought this was the best comedy I've seen this year. I couldn't stop laughing the first 30 min or so, then it slowed a bit but was very enjoyable throughout.

I am really amazed at how bad critics made this out to be, thankfully I was bored enough to watch it anyway and you should too. If you don't like it, then you need to work on your sense of humor and learn to enjoy life. I'll watch the original so I can compare the two, but regardless this version is well worth the watch.

As for the acting, Brand was very convincing and very funny throughout. In fact all of the characters had there moments, very well done by everyone involved. I know this isn't a great review but I just wanted let people know the truth about this movie and that is its a great movie to watch and enjoy, not critique and compare to an old original.

Update: Just watched the original and all I can say is wow, are you all idiots(negative reviewers)? The new version is so much better than the original. As i stated previously I laughed seemingly non stop for the first 30 min or so, with the original I maybe chuckled twice during that period. If you ask me there is no question which is better, out with the old in with the new.

A financially spoiled, but loved deprived 30-ish man finds there's more to life than spending wildly.

[kdnj · 7/10 · 10 April 2011]

I found this movie to be appealing. It seems a lot of reviewers went into the theater already knowing they were not going to like this film because they are fans of the original. Well then - why go at all? You have to approach this film as something new; then you will enjoy a simply entertaining film. Not a blockbuster; but entertaining. Russel Brand is very good, but I did find some of his lines hard to hear because they were very soft spoken. There are a number of funny, "under the breath" comments that I think were missed by some in the audience. Helen Mirren was excellent. Jennifer Garner seemed out of place in this film; she did not fit her role. I'm not familiar with Greta Gerwig's other work. I thought she presented a new, fresh face among young. actresses. I look forward to seeing more from her.

Pointless, unfunny and a huge waste of money

[SoutheastUK · 1/10 · 4 December 2013]

I will not bang on about the differences between this and the original because there really is no point.

Brand is the worst possible choice for a lead role in ANY movie, let alone the remake of a classic. I can't think for a moment what possessed them to cast Brand in a role that demands a charismatic, lovable rogue when Brand has all the charisma of a whelk and barely qualifies as a human being.

There was no justification for this remake. They would have had to do at least ONE component better, but in their choice of lead, they ensured that this was always going to fail.

not too shabby

[kordell11 · 7/10 · 1 September 2011]

well i must say this movie wasn't the greatest i've seen, nor is it the worst. i thought it would be a dumb movie about a spoiled rich kid afraid to grow up and have responsibilities, which it was, but it was a lot more than that. turns out, the movie had great emotional moments and gave the audience a GOOD message for once. the message being that money can't buy you happiness or love, something i think gets lost with most people nowadays. it was refreshing to see this message come from a movie! Arthur's character is well played by brand who can be so immature at times, yet is also forced to deal with a lot of emotions and eventually becomes a better man by going through things. the connection between Arthur and Naomi couldn't have been more perfect, what a refreshing actress she is compared to the cookie cutter model type in most movies. oh and it made me laugh a few times, especially when he gets in the gummy bear suit! lol

Boring and sad

[policy134 · 1/10 · 8 February 2013]

Though, I wasn't really a fan of the original, it did have the greatest comic drunk in Dudley Moore. This however, proves that funny drunks can only be portrayed on The Simpsons. It's also a little sad to see Helen Mirren in this kind of material. She actually said on the Blu-Ray Extras that she thought the director was good because he let the actors ad-lib a lot. What the hell is that? As it looks to me, this film chucked out all that supposedly ad-libbed material and made this into the standard romantic comedy. There are a few scenes with witty banter between Brand's Arthur and Greta Gerwig's Naomi but the rest is a crashing bore.

Another thing is the storyline about the arranged marriage. The mother's motivation for fixing Arthure up with the Jennifer Garner character feels absolutely false. She would almost immediately get him to be a worse drunk than he was before.

As for the comedy, there is absolutely not a single line that gives you more than a mild chuckle. I don't know why the usually reliant Luis Guzman dropped his heavy accent here either. Yes, he does play virtually the same guy every film he's in but I almost missed it here. Here he just seems to waiting to cash in.

I don't usually give all out negative comments like this one, but this film looks like it wasted a huge amount of money to remake a film that wasn't that good in the first place. To the director: Please try to come up with an original at some point and to the actors: don't give praise to a director who lets you loose and then makes you boring.

Helen Mirren in for John Gielgud?

[tim-764-291856 · 6/10 · 11 June 2012]

Watching on Sky Movies Premier, this was a much anticipated update for me, loving the original and thought the idea of having a nanny in the form of British Super Legend Helen Mirren in the place of that original world-weary and tart (vocally, that is!) John Gielgud.

Those brought up on the inimitable Dudley Moore original will always compare this unfavourably, not least of all in that Moore was a long- standing, widely loved actor/comedian and Brand, certainly by comparison, is a cheeky new kid on the block and generally known only to a modern and youngish audience, thus limiting its appeal.

Brand is actually not bad, though he occasionally lapses from the requisite clipped English into mis-pronounced key words, not often but noticeable- a small point maybe, admittedly. There is an attempt to get Russell's hair similar to Dudley's, another small point, but I noticed! Mirren as Hobson is usually very good, with some excellent comic retorts but somehow isn't as consistently funny/good as she should be. That is probably down to the writing.

What does probably let down the side the most, may be the two young women in Arthur's life. Liza Minnelli is simply NOT replaceable and the chemistry generated between Brand and Greta Gerwig is tepid, whereas originally, the two (Moore & Minnelli) absolutely fizzed together, sparkling more than one of Arthur's flutes of champagne.

Luis Guzman IS great as the Batman 'Robin' chauffeur and there are quite a few new scenes made up specially for this film, rather than just lazily re-filming the old one.

I'm not sure that the extra 13 minutes over the original is a welcome one. It doesn't have the quality of the material to keep it going for that long. My score is nearer 6.5 than 6 but 7 it is not.

Tedious, unfunny, long, just a big mess

[MovieProductions · 3/10 · 17 April 2011]

* out of (****)

After giving such a rancid review to "The rite", making the claim that it was the worst film so far of 2011, well... 2011 has a new contender. Even going in, I knew this film was going to be atrocious from start to finish. Why see it then? Apparently my friend's fun night out consisted of buying my ticket to a movie I didn't ask to see, then having to reimburse him/her later, and eventually just seeing the damn movie.

Honestly, I kept in open mind in the beginning, but this film just did not do it for me. Even in the most stale comedies, I can laugh here or there. I NEVER laughed or chuckled. Not even a heartfelt smile. I honestly sat there with the same blank expression. What's even worse is that I predicted absolutely every scene, guessed every punchline, and even knew going it what I was going to get.

First of all, let's talk about the performers. Russell Brand is seriously the most irritable, pretentious actor, or at least in this film. I swear, I did not care at all about him. He didn't bring any charm or wit, he was just flat. Jennifer Garner was as equally obnoxious, but at least she didn't take up the majority of the film. As for the others? Honestly, I didn't connect to any characters. There was no development, no depth, no purpose. The characters were just there.

Not to mention, this story has been told a thousand times before. Can Hollywood stop beating a dead horse? Remake or not, the script is just very uninspired. Rich, pretentious dude has to marry an equally rich, pretentious dude, but falls for an arrogant, so called "sweatheart" and doesn't care about the "money". Maybe this would be interesting had it not been projected on the screen so many times.

All in all, "Arthur" is just another waste of celluloid. It isn't funny, it's not entertaining, and it's not worth seeing. Plain and simple. Had I not been forced to see this movie, trust me, I wouldn't have. If you MUST see it, please just rent the original. It's probably better than this movie. All I'm glad is that 2011 so far has had only two stinkers, or at least I've seen.

Haters gonna Hate

[SpartanIII · 8/10 · 10 April 2011]

I thought this film was simply brilliant. The acting in it was great, the comedic timing perfect, the script well written, and the setting well shown. Yes, once again it is a movie set in New York, but there's a reason why they can't having them there. It's an amazing city. And this movie showcases that very well. I appreciated the range of humor they had in there as well. Some of it was raunchy, and then at other times it was mild and a relief from some of the over the top jokes. The climax was well done, humorous yet tasteful at the same time, and the conclusion was very appropriate.

I heard some people complaining about how this movie was showcasing how rich people have it made and it wouldn't be received well today because of the economic climate. That was ridiculous. If anything, it shows how money really can't buy happiness, and that the most important thing in this world is that we have each other. Overall, very enjoyable film that one should go into with an open mind and just have a good time.

Money Can't Buy...

[geminiredblue · 7/10 · 16 April 2011]

Last night, I went to see ARTHUR. Even though I'm normally stand-offish towards remakes, I decided to give this one a chance. And I must admit, I was thoroughly entertained. Russell Brand's version of Arthur is played with a Michael Jackson-esque innocence that you don't see much in movies anymore. And that's what we like about the character, he's childish, irresponsible, but well-meaning to a fault. When he gets into trouble and makes the difficult choice to grow up, you want to see him succeed. In contrast, Helen Mirren (as Hobson) is the perfect foil- she's stern, sarcastic and doesn't put up with any of Arthur's antics. And even though Arthur's REAL mother is cold and distant, you can tell that Hobson raised and loved him. Which only reinforces what I first learned in BATMAN BEGINS with Michael Caine's Alfred. Sometimes, the hired help are the actual parents of the rich and well-to-do children. And in ARTHUR, there is a real chemistry between Arthur and Hobson. So the movie is heartwarming and funny in equal doses, without being cloying or contrived. One funny scene in particular (spoiler alert!) involves Brand, Garner and a bed. Overall, if you're looking for a fun, relaxing and entertaining show, please go and see the new ARTHUR. Oh and one other kudo, thank God the filmmakers had the good sense to have kids acting like kids!

Why you don't use talentless Boyfriends of celebrities

[mia-noisia · 1/10 · 16 April 2011]

How this guy keeps getting into movies i don't know.Shockingly bad you can see Brand's mind ticking over trying to do something funny, and failing.Most of the time he's just doing a poor Dudley impression.Its almost an insult to Dudley Moore.Hollywood sure is desperate nowadays.This is why you don't use TV presenters as lead in comic roles.Brand tried his hand at stand up, and it was a lot worse than this film (ponderland). He needs to stick to what he knows best, presenting trashy reality TV gossip shows. Hopefully the last instalment of a desperate attempt at a career in comedy.And on behalf of the United Kingdom may i thank Katy Perry for taking the annoying **** off ours hands.