Arthur

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.

"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

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.

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.

This film is about a young alcoholic man who has to marry a woman whom he does not love, so that he can get his billion dollar inheritance from his mother.

"Arthur" is a lighthearted comedy about a rich young man, who is still a child at heart. He has no sense of responsibility, as he does not have to work for any of the material wealth he has. Despite his immaturity and egocentricity and childishness, Arthur is a likable character. If other comedians portray him, he would easily become irritating and even offensive. So well done to Russell Brand. The romantic comedy element is also engaging and entertaining, so I find "Arthur" a good film for brainless entertainment.