Genres

Visitors Review

Nat Williams 2012-05-25 14:55:41

Unncessary remake of a classic falls far short of brilliance

I suppose if I were to do a remake of the 1981 movie "Arthur" I coulddo worse than cast Russell Brand in the title role. He most closelymatches the comic talent of Dudley Moore, who starred in the original.The point is, however, why do the remake in the first place? There isan inherent danger in attempting to resurrect a classic, which theoriginal movie certainly was. The new version performs a couple of sexchanges. The first transforms Hobson from a man - expertly portrayed inthe original in an Oscar-winning performance by Sir John Gielgud - to afemale nanny, played by Helen Mirren. Arthur's controlling parent thistime around is his mother rather than his father. Other than that,there is little in this effort that is original. Don't get me wrong:Brand is a gifted comedic actor. But in my book, Dudley Moore was - andalways will be - Arthur. With Netflix, Redbox and other servicesavailable, there is no excuse for those who haven't seen the original"Arthur" to watch this inferior version.

Bill Jordan 2012-05-25 08:51:12

Dudley must have turned over in his grave

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 Ihad read some critical reviews, and wasn't enthusiastic. As it turnedout, the critics were right, and I applaud the marketing geniuses whowere actually able to make "Arthur" look even remotely entertaining.Brand, who I usually like, was nothing better than annoying, and hemight have been the best one in the cast. The dialog was silly in partsand completely corny in others, the premise was poorly executed, andthe six people at the showing I attended never let out anything morethan a slight giggle from time to time, probably out of embarrassmentfor the performers more than anything else.On the plus side, if my fiancé ever criticizes any of my cinematicchoices, I can remind her of this tripe. That ought to put an end tothat conversation.

MLDinTN 2012-05-23 04:37:22

does anyone really care that....

a rich, selfish, childish, drunk chooses love over money. That's theproblem with this movie. Arthur has no redeemable qualities so whywould we care if he ends up happy? Russell Brand plays an over the topcharacter of himself as rich playboy Arthur. Arthur still has a nannyand spends money like it grows on trees and stays drunk most of thetime. One day his mom is tired of the embarrassment and tells him hemust marry, Susan, a business minded woman, or lose his money. At thesame time, Aurthor meets Naomi and is smitten with her. But he's likethat with most women he meets. And for some unknown reason he reallyloves this one? That wasn't believable. Nothing is shown as to whyNaomi would stand out from all the other girls.Hudson is the only woman Arthur could ever really love, but other thanthat he's so selfish and annoying. No woman would put up with that.FINAL VERDICT: Don't waste your time.

doc_of_rock 2012-05-22 11:42:03

Close

I enjoyed this movie. The original Arthur is my wife's and my favoritemovie. This version is not, but it was quite enjoyable. The script wassmart and funny, poignant and clever. The cinematography is wonderful.The movie suffered in its casting. While Russell Brand was terrific, aswas Helen Mirren,it was odd to see Hobson portrayed as a woman, andcalled by her last name. The Naomi character left me absolutely cold. Ididn't buy that there could be any attraction between the two, andthat, to me, was what ruined the experience. The humor, as with theoriginal, was pithy and smart. Apparently, however, it is noteveryone's cup of tea. All in all, a fun and terrific little movie,just missing being a great movie.

dngcal-934-90564 2012-05-22 12:34:27

Brand = Moron

First: Brand is not Dudley Moore. He is without question a terribleactor who must believe that his ego will save the day. This is a guyyou want to take in a back alley and break his knee caps. He acts likehe is: a total jerk and moron. Hollywood should make all actors passsome IQ test before they are permitted to be in front of a camera. Whyhe was chosen is beyond me and I suspect some idiot thought that anyonewith a Brit accent will do. This film is a pile of dung. If you likethe story view the original. Why does Hollywood hire such flakes andexpect us to like them? Producers: this man is a total IDIOT!

FlashCallahan 2012-05-21 20:34:31

The moon follows me.....

Premise is simple, Wealthy child like playboy who isn't Dudley Moore,stands to lose his wealth if he doesn't marry the woman his motherchose for him. Worse still, he's falling in love with a fake tourguide....It was positive from the word go, seeing as i Haven't seen theoriginal, and i happened to come across 'on the rocks' on TV not solong ago.I thought it was going to be a disaster, seeing the poor reviews andbox office, but amazingly, I found a pleasing and quite endearing movieand titular character.It's more or less the Brand and Mirren show here, and they have such aball on screen, that it's impossible not to like when they are both onscreen.It may be a pointless remake, and the supporting cast (notably Garner,Nolte, James, and Guzman) are wasted in an awful way, but hey are justfiller for the forth-comings of Arthur. It's not laugh out loud funnyand very predictable, but for Brand, he shows he isn't just a flash inthe pan, and can play more than a Rock Star or Ironic 'cockney'comedian.Mirren is great and plays the straight (wo)man to Brands little child.There are great references to other films and it all looks great, butif you don't think of Moore, or the fact that this is pretty cheesystuff, it's a good movie to take your mind off the real world for awhile.

Dany Danersson 2012-05-19 23:27:17

Waste of my time.

This movie is a waste of money and my time. waste of my time waste ofmy time waste of my time waste of my time waste of my time waste of mytime waste of my time waste of my time waste of my time waste of mytime waste of my time waste of my time waste of my time waste of mytime waste of my time waste of my time waste of my time waste of mytime waste of my time waste of my time waste of my time waste of mytime waste of my time waste of my time waste of my time waste of mytime waste of my time waste of my time waste of my time waste of mytime waste of my time waste of my time waste of my time waste of mytime waste of my time waste of my time waste of my time waste of mytime waste of my time waste of my time waste of my time waste of mytime waste of my time waste of my time waste of my time waste of mytime waste of my time waste of my time waste of my time waste of mytime waste of my time waste of my time waste of my time waste of mytime waste of my time waste of my time waste of my time waste of mytime waste of my time waste of my time waste of my time waste of mytime waste of my time waste of my time waste of my time waste of mytime waste of my time waste of my time waste of my time waste of mytime waste of my time waste of my time waste of my time waste of mytime waste of my time waste of my time waste of my time waste of mytime waste of my time waste of my time waste of my time waste of mytime

bdub640 2012-05-19 12:05:17

Arthur Review by Brian W

First off Russell Brand is a comedic genius - If you only take away oneitem from this review, it should be that.Arthur (2011) is a remake of the 1981 Arthur, which starred Dudley More& Liza Minnelli. Let me say the original is a classic, if you have notseen it you should put it at the top of your Netflix queue, JohnGielgud playing Hobson in an Academy Award winning role.The best way for you to approach this remake is to hold off oncomparisons, because it sadly does not hold a candle to the original.BUT! This is still a fun and cute movie. As I implied before RussellBrand is absolutely adorable in the lead. You can see that Brand'spersonal life has helped him train for this role. I absolutely buy himas an alcoholic with a heart of gold. The other core of this movie isHelen Mirren. What can I say about Ms. Mirren that everyone doesn'talready know? She is one of the greatest actresses of our time! Ofcourse you already knew that. Mirren plays her role so lovable andstill so dark at the same time, you can't help but love everything shesays. You also love Mirren because when the scene has to become seriousand you need a real actor to step in you know that Mirren is more thatqualified for the job. These two are fantastic together I wouldprobably watch them do anything, even watching them comment on paintdry.The hidden gem of this movie, as everyone else is saying, is GretaGerwing. She is so adorable. Throughout the movie you fall in love withthis girl and her personality. Gerwig's character falling in love withthe horrible yet still uber charming character of Arthur is completelybelievable. The scene when she and Hobson are grilling each other inArthur's home theater is pure fun.The other supporting female of the movie is Jennifer Garner, she playsSusanJohnson, the character who is set to marry Arthur. She is quitefine in her role and I enjoyed her. Garner steals the show in onescene, when she drunkenly impersonates a sexy kitty a top Arthur'smagnetic bed - quite possibly the hardest I laughed in the movie. LuisGuzman is also in the movie as Bitterman, Arthur's driver. Guzman getsa few laughs but is pretty absent for most of the movie. (Which couldbe a good or bad thing, I am not quite sure yet.) Finally you have theever-crazy Nick Nolte, showing up for about a total of 10 insaneminutes, all of which are a bit on the silly side.The movies plot is nearly the same as the original, with some updatesto modern time. The movie has been tailored a little bit to fit Brand'ssense of humor, and with that has its hits and misses. I think that youwill have fun with this movie depending on how much you like RussellBrand, since the movie is mostly Brand having fun. Overall I enjoyedthe movie very much. This is the perfect date night movie, somethingfor both the guy and girl to enjoy. It was a small cute little remake,but try not to think of it as a remake and you will have more fun.I give the movie a 7.5 out of 10 / or a B Thank you again for readingand as always ENJOY THE MOVIES! If you like this please check out therest of my blog at http://brianwatchesmovies.tumblr.com/

tamiteixeira 2012-05-19 01:58:05

worst idea ever

Making a remake of a comedy classic is a horrible idea. Than when youconsider the horrible acting and casting, makes it an all around badidea. The original was absolutely fantastic it is funny without beingstupid and intelligent, all that can be said about this one is STUPID.Dudley Moore was absolutely wonderful in the original and this guy issoo bad i don't even care what his name is. the chemistry between theoriginal cast was also better. I would highly recommend everyoneavoiding this movie and going for the original. you would have to payme to go to watch this one. Please do yourself a favour and just watchthe original and if you have any taste in movies at all you willunderstand in an instant that the original Arthur is in a class byitself.

ncbronte-120-891032 2012-05-18 06:44:41

Confirming that remakes are easier said than done.

I wonder what studios are thinking when they release movies likethis... other than greed and desperation. The original "Arthur", with Moore and Minnelli, held (and still does)top spot for my favorite comedy. Moore's Arthur was believable andoffered moments of maturity, even in his inebriation. He was funny andendearing, but the film didn't condone the behavior. In this, the new Arthur, Brand is silly, foppish and the film appearsto celebrate and explain away the behavior. The dialog runs amok withback story and cliché, with the androgynous Brand performing endless,pointless and boring shtick. How utterly embarrassing for Helen Miren!It goes to show that, these days, anyone can make at least one movie ormusic recording, regardless of talent and it seems creativity is at anall-time low in the industry.If anything, it should drive people to appreciate the original, all theMoore/more! I rented it for my 14 year-old grandsons and promptlyrinsed their minds out with a session of "Pay It Forward" and "To KillA Mockingbird" bleach.Brand should have taken on someone in his own weight class, instead hetook a dive.

Mina Martinez 2012-05-18 00:24:42

A spoiled alcoholic and big baby behaving as a rock star finds himself involved in a marriage for interest in the way he falls in love.

His mom is forcing that marriage so he has to decide between money orlove, He lives in a bubble spending money as crazy and without caringabout anything and is unable to understand the real world but thanks tohis nanny he starts to do his best. His mind works as a mind of a kiddoes, he loves colors, toy and games and falls in love with someonelike that.Sweet, funny, heart warming, and enjoyable. Jennifer Gardendoes an amazing job here, aggressive and sexy. The nanny is just lovelyand smart and the guy an asshole... a new love story. You will enjoyhow fun is to spy people and don't forget the moon is always followingyou. Those 10 bucks will not be regretted. =)

bkoganbing 2012-05-17 23:30:24

That Respectability That Old Money Brings

Although this remake of Arthur, 30 years after the original came outplaced a lot more emphasis on physical comedy. That's more RussellBrand's shtick, but I think Dudley Moore did a whole lot more withArthur Bach using character development.Regardless it's still the same futile drunken playboy who can't standon his own two feet. Filthy rich, but without any kind of skills tosurvive in the real world, Arthur just drifts night to night gettingstupidly drunk and causing all kinds of grief.There's not much you can do with him and his widowed mother who lefthim in the care of nanny Helen Mirren has a plan to merge a pair offortunes. Nouveau rich Jennifer Garner and her father Nick Nolte who isa self made millionaire want a little of that respectability that oldmoney brings. In Europe you marry a title, in America you marry a Ford,a Rockefeller, or a Bach in this case.The fly in the ointment is that Brand has fallen for middle class girlGreta Gerwig who wants to write children's stories. Whatever heart thatBrand's mother Geraldine James has and it ain't much, Brand is about tobreak.Of course the big change in this version is Helen Mirren becoming ananny and taking the place of John Gielgud who won an Academy Award asHobson the butler. Sad to say I knew at least one Arthur in my own lifethough he was a gay version of the character. Whether you're raised bydistant parents or a hired nanny at some point in your life you have totake control. Nobody let's him grow up and sad to say that includes hisclosest confidante Mirren.If you've seen the first version than you know what's going happen inthe film. This version of Arthur does have its merits, but I reallyrecommend seeing what Dudley Moore did with the part before judgingthis one.

nc-holdsworth 2012-05-17 14:22:21

About as funny as a burning orphanage

Totally utterly mind numbingly awful. Russell Brand is about as funny as a burning orphanage - quite why thisgangly, massive faced idiot is popular is frankly beyond belief. I amled to believe his fans like the way he speaks in that mockney poeticnonsensical kind of way believing he has some kind of intellect. Well yes I can understand if he speaks fast enough and uses x number ofbig words he is seemingly intelligent to the average sheep. The film is a remake of an 80s film and also stars the endless borethat is Helen Mirren. The second 'queen' of england has the ability inany interview to talk a glass eye to sleep. She outright dismisses theoriginal (normally the kiss of death) as 'boring' as alcoholism is nota funny subject. Anything is a funny subject - if its funny. Get itHelen? I seem to recall around the time the original was made MrsMirren was busy getting her kit off in every film she made so leave itout love. Anyway stay well clear unless you are a fan of Brand in which case I amobviously a 'hater'. However the opinion of anyone who would use thatword wouldn't really matter to me anyway.

2012-05-16 23:53:27

Dreadfully predictable.

I found this movie to be very predictable and extremely dull. The writing was just awful, even Russell Brand couldn't save it. The lines were not thought out well, and just not funny. Kind of like they were pounded out quickly to get the movie released before something funnier came along. The plot just plodded along in that same old tried and true "random" love story pattern. The humor was either alcohol or sex based, which albeit can be pretty funny at times, just fell flat here (for instance, Arthur threw a large party. One of the "funny" parts was the nanny first pulling a thong off a piece of furniture and then finding Arthur under some random girl. Ha. Ha.) Unfortunately, I was forced to finish it.I WANT MY TWO HOURS OF LIFE BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reddpill 2012-05-16 04:20:20

Do yourself a favor -- rent the original instead

Was this remake horrible? No, but it also wasn't that great. In only acouple of scenes did this film lift itself above mediocrity. Incomparing this update to the 1981 version, the original is simplybetter on every point. Russell Brand is probably the best choice theycould make for the lead, but he doesn't measure up to Dudley Moore'sArthur. And the wonderful Helen Mirren does her best, but she justcan't match John Gielgud's witty portrayal of Hobson. The writing fellparticularly short of the mark. The one bright spot for me was GretaGerwig, whom I had not previously seen. She did a fine job of making athinly-written character become real. I look forward to seeing her inthe future.

jambee 2012-05-15 11:32:56

A funny, real, and heartfelt movie that goes above and beyond the original Arthur

Having scene the original film and being a huge fan of Russel Brand, myheart was set on seeing this movie at the theatre. I wasn't quite surewhat I was going to be served going into this remake or if it wouldlive up to the original, but I wanted to give it the benefit of thedoubt. In all honesty, I was expecting them to make Arthur kind ofridiculous, look stupid, or just throw in the type of stupid comedythat many of the comedies are turning into these days. If I was judgingit based on some of the trailers, especially the "wash your winky"scene, then I shouldn't be far off right? Wrong! Instead while watchingthe film I was pleasantly surprised and even exited. I think thisremake did what any remake should do and give the story a new life andtake it above and beyond the original. There was many parts in theoriginal that skipped through scenes or ideas too fast, where in thisone they chose to deal with it (for example Arther's mother and hisalcoholism). Even Arthur's love interest is a lovable character thatdoesn't seem as needy or off track as the original character. It wascharming, witty and heartfelt. I think it even went to a deeper levelthen the original. At one moment I was even a bit teary-eyed. If youwant a movie that is funny, real and tells a great story definitely seeArthur.

TheLittleSongbird 2012-05-14 23:58:15

Just didn't see the point to it

I don't jump on the bandwagon of immediately hating on a remake asthere are some great ones out there. I watched the Arthur remake as Ido 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, Ididn't laugh once, and by the end of last week I was starting to getannoyed at Offenbach's Can Can(a fun piece especially to dance and singalong to but can get on your nerves sometimes depending on the time andplace) being played for the hundredth time.Arthur wasn't for me quite the abomination that I heard it was, but inall honesty I didn't see much point to it. It is better than the Psychoand Wicker Man remakes both of which almost made me lose the will tolive, but for a good remake look towards The Thief of Baghdad, TheMagnificent Seven and especially The Thing. If I were to compare thisto the 1981 film, the 1981 film is much better being very funny andcharming and I actually preferred the much-maligned-but(in myopinion)-better-than-its-reputation sequel over this too.I will get the good things out of the way. I did like very much how thefilm looked and the location shooting is very striking and thesoundtrack is infectious. But here come the many negatives. While Iadmire that Arthur tried to stick faithfully to the original film, Ithink there are times when it tries too hard and it comes off as beingtoo faithful. Except here while there was wit, fun and charm in theoriginal and in its sequel, there is not enough of that here, thesevere letdown that is the ending pretty much epitomises this. Thescript is often unfunny and juvenile, severely lacking in the acidityand drollness that worked so well before, and the gags are really quiteweak, predictable and poorly timed.I don't mind a movie where it has moments of predictability, a lot ofmovies do, but it does bother me when there are too many momentsthroughout where it is. That is the case with Arthur, and I can't countthe number of times where I was saying to myself "now where have I seenthis before". Again, I don't mind when a movie show little or nothingnew, but the difference is Arthur in the end didn't make me overlookthat because it was lacking in charm.The direction is rather poor as well, often rushed and smug, and therewere times where I felt there should be more time to breathe. And thereare some moments where there is little or no humour that are reallyquite dull. The acting overall fares little better. I have to saythough Russell Brand did have very big shoes to fill and he does do anadmirable job trying to convey some spontaneous cheeky charm. Theproblem is not only is his material unfunny and dreadfully weak but histitular character clichéd and unlikeable. Arthur in the original wasclichéd 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-servedwith her material. She has no snappy lines, no funny joke, no witty gagto write home about, so overall it was the pretty-but-bland actingperformance. I'd say the same for Jennifer Garner as well, and alsothat her frothy acting style didn't entirely work within the tone andstyle of the film. I was most saddened about Helen Mirren, bless hershe tries so hard, but in the John Gielgud role she can't do anythingwith her lines, she has some decent delivery but there is none of thedroll and acidic quality in the one-liners to go the extra mile. Thenthere are talented actors such as Nick Nolte and Geraldine James whoare largely wasted.All in all, not an abomination but pointless. 2/10 Bethany Cox

Van Roberts 2012-05-14 16:07:41

This Remake of "Arthur" Lacks Art!

Everything that made the original "Arthur" (1981) such an appealing butpolitically-incorrect romantic comedy is conspicuously missing from thelackluster remake co-starring Russell Brand and Helen Mirren. Freshmandirector Jason Winer's slick, glossy, $40-million rehash of "Arthur"includes several hopeless changes from the original that don't improvethe finished product. Moreover, Warner Brothers looks like it wasbanking heavily on "Arthur" to make millions because they let theproducers shoehorn one of the studio's hottest, million-dollar plusproperties into the plot: Batman. "Arthur" opens and closes with ourirresponsible hero joy-riding through the streets of New York City in areplica of the Batmobile. Winer and "Bruno" scenarist Peter Baynhamhave updated the story line and sharpened the focus. Unfortunately,this overt realism detracts from what essentially was a hilarious"Cinderella" fairy tale for adults. Mind you, the chiefcharacters--particularly the eponymous zillionaire playboy--emerge asmore often obnoxious than sympathetic. The idea of casting Russell Brand in the role that Dudley Mooreimmortalized with his considerable wit and subtlety had some modicum ofmerit. After all, Moore and Brand both hail from England, and Brand isan exotic misfit. He takes himself no more seriously than Moore tookhimself. Sadly, the comic sensibilities that differentiate them fromeach other doesn't make Brand's Arthur Bach either more interesting orsympathetic. As his nanny, Helen Mirren succeeds far better thananybody in a biological role change. Meanwhile, Nick Nolte is a perfectfit as the grumpy father of the woman, Jennifer Garner, who ourprotagonist is fated to wed against his wishes. Baynham fails toreplicate the sparkling dialogue of the original and none of the linesare quotable. When everything is said and done, "Arthur" amounts to aninferior remake and none of Brand's antics can compensate for theseshortcomings.Arthur Bach (Russell Brand of "Forgetting Sarah Marshall") doesn't knowthe meaning of work. Indeed, Arthur has never earned a dime by thesweat of his own brow in his life. Nevertheless, he has more money toblow than most people ever dream about, and he indulges his every whimand desire with his millions. Such is Arthur's notoriety that thepolice are already familiar with his outrageous shenanigans. Nothingthat he does surprises them. When the authorities pull over his devotedbut simple-minded chauffeur, Bitterman (Luis Guzman of "Mystery Men"),at the outset of the action, they know that only Arthur has enoughmoney to not only buy his own Batmobile replica but also careen aroundthe streets in it. Furthermore, it comes as no surprise to them thatArthur is sloshed. Arthur rarely does anything without an alcoholicdrink in his hand. Mind you, the cops catch up with Arthur not becausethey are better drivers, but because Bitterman and Arthur cannot handletheir Batmobile. The humor here is our tipsy hero crashes into thefamous statue of a huge bull on Wall Street. When Arthur tries toextricate himself from the wreckage, he finds himself wedged up againstthe bull's abundant scrotum.Eventually, Arthur's long-suffering mother, Vivienne (Geraldine Jamesof "Gandhi"), who manages the family business, tires of her son'sexcesses and forces him to grow up. Namely, Vivience plans to depriveArthur of his $950 million inheritance unless he bows to blackmail andmarries a wealthy heiress, Susan Johnson (Jennifer Garner of "Catch andRelease"), who she holds in high regard for her business acumen.Naturally, Arthur doesn't like his mother's ultimatum. Initially, hetries his hand at working. Predictably, Arthur's attempts at holdingdone a job at Dylan's, Gotham's most illustrious candy store end indisaster. Arthur's life-long nanny and confidante, Hobson (Helen Mirrenof "Red"), believes that a trip to the altar might straighten him up.Hobson has spent most of her life picking up after Arthur and forcinghis hookers and one-night stands to cough up his expensive toys andvaluables than they tried to steal.Along the way, rebellious Arthur discovers penniless Naomi Quinn (GretaGerwig of "No Strings Attached"), the woman that he has spent hisentire life looking for. Naomi works as a Manhattan tour guide withouta license. Indeed, like Arthur, the authorities know about her and haverepeatedly warned her about her illegitimate job. In the original"Arthur," the girl of his dreams, Liza Minnelli's hard-working waitressLinda Marolla, was a shoplifter who liked to steal ties for herunemployed father. Naomi and Arthur hit it off splendidly because ourhero knows how to spend big. Arthur makes a major mistake when forgetsto inform Naomi about his predicament. When she learns that Arthur isabout to marry Susan, Naomi washes her hands of him. It doesn't helpmatters that Arthur has pulled strings to get a publisher for herchildren's book.As remakes go, "Arthur" seems rather pointless, no matter how wellWiner and Baynham have updated the protagonist's antics. Sadly, thoseantics are more tasteless than amusing. Worse, in an effort todifferentiate themselves from the original, they have poor Arthur soberup following the Twelve-Step Alcoholics Anonymous program. Brandpossesses none of the charm and wit that made the original Dudley Moorecharacter so infectiously funny. Instead, Brand tries to convert thetitle character into the rock'n roll miscreant that he portrayed notonly in "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" but also "Get Him to the Greek.""Arthur" fails to generate any chemistry between its leads. Brand andMirren don't bond, and she doesn't get to deliver the acid-tipped barbsthat John Gielgud in the original administered with such relish.

joyday 2012-05-11 23:32:14

English accents are subdued for American audiences

I loved every minute of this modern version of "Arthur." We're livingin the present and wouldn't think of judging it by the 30 year oldfilm. This link is 4 minutes long, and is an interview done by IMDbwith Russell Brand on the subj. of his movie "Arthur" 2011.http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3369245977/Helen Mirren, always by his side, has been his nanny since birth, andLuis Guzman plays his chauffeur, so he is not a drunk driver eventhough he is drinking in the first half of the movie. He goes to AA,which is not a spoiler; it just makes the movie doable! Think of being so rich that you give someone $10K to let you wear theircostume for one hour; it is this sort of wild unimaginable mischiefthat makes this movie for me. Also, that Russell Brand is an adorableguy, skinny, tall 6'3" with dark wavy hair.If you have trouble with English accents, this movie is edited forAmerican audiences; only Russell and Helen Mirren and a couple of bitparts have the English accent. Dame Helen is great at comedy, much likeDame Judi Dench. Russell is comparable to Dawn French (The Vicar ofDibley) in that in-your-face-funny way.I believe the low rating it got, 5.6/10 instead 9/10 which is myrating, is likely to be that some Americans can't always get the selfdeprecating English sense of humor; I feel for these people!A nice wedding song I haven't heard for awhile is "Going to theChapel."Grand Central Station and skyscrapers in New York City are wonderful.We get several skyline views of Russell's home, recognizable by itsaqua roof; it is a penthouse.

bopdog 2012-05-11 08:30:25

More real than the original. Brand and Gerwig are great! (As are Mirren, a good guy, and Garner, a villain)

I must confess to being one of the curmudgeons who found the original"Arthur" really bad. Drunkenness has never been funny to me.Loutishness, narcissism and a life without vision or purpose has alsobeen nothing to tolerate, let alone boast about, in my world. When Iheard that this new incarnation of the old Dudley Moore movie wasmarkedly unlike the original, that actually prompted me to give it ago. Plus, I have always found Russell Brand's loopy self-absorptionkind of funny (he loves his mum!).This new version was much better cast than the original. John Gielgudsimply had too much gravitas and dignity to have really tolerated thatDudley Moore Arthur. He wouldn't have stayed more than a few days, thenhe would have booked out of there. And whatever good qualities LizaMinnelli may have possessed, sexual appeal, charm, and romanticpotential were totally not among them from my perspective.This time Helen Mirren as the Gielgud character lets on that she toomay have a few dark corners of her libidinous make-up, and that shefound the arrangement of a loving and care-giving relationship withArthur somewhat satisfying, and at least safe. Her reasons, of course,she wisely keeps to herself, the audience is left to make up their ownplausible back-story.And this time the "approved" betrothal object, played by the marvelousJennifer Garner, is not hideous (Jennifer Garner is constitutionallyincapable of playing hideous) so much as cold, heartless, driven, andon her own mission. With that character one is repulsed, but one alsohas a momentary flirtation with the idea of "Heck- why not?"Garner's dad, aptly played by Nick Nolte, was a vulgar thug, venal andcoarse. Greta Gerwig as the real love interest of Arthur is simply adorable. Ihave never seen her before, but found her absolutely perfect. She issweet without being cloying, attractive without catering to somecranked-out version of media hotness "a la mode." She seemed genuine,deep, innocent, and completely the kind of person anyone, especiallyArthur, would love to spend time with for the intrinsic delight of hercompany and her vibe. Gerwig deftly showed us her character's heartwithout any effort or melodrama.Lastly- this movie wisely decided NOT to try to re-do the old storypoint-by-point. The old story simply wasn't worthy then, and God knowsit wouldn't be now. No departures are radical, in case you did somehowfondly recall Moore and Co's 1981 effort. But it was re-thought in arelevant and meaningful way that makes it a better story. All in all, then, this "Arthur" is more believable than the stinky anddreary original. The premise of both is so outlandish as to be almoststupid, but watching these great actors take us through the stages ofthe story was a joy.