ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Paynbob It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

JokerMichel It was bad .Very bad . There was no real plot, or a good script Just a waste of time

Howlin Wolf Full disclosure: I must be one of the only people in the known universe who DIDN'T like the original - so if you come to this update with an affection for its progenitor, then I can well understand you hating it, and dismissing my opinion... However, if like me you're one of the rare breed who senses potential for improvement, then you might just be well satisfied!Part of the problem with the 1981 version for me was that I couldn't shake the feeling that I was watching Dudley Moore kill himself, on screen... The character of Arthur (and indeed, maybe Dudley himself... ) seemed to drink to hide an inexhaustible sadness, and all of his hijinks were just a way for him to feel not so alone... Some of you out there may be the type of viewers who like that kind of pathos, but I just found it tragic, and it made me uncomfortable that we were being encouraged to cheer on an individual in slow decline.In this new film, Brand still drinks - but this time it feels more like an accompaniment to the silliness, than the very fuel that propels it... Arthur here is someone who refuses to grow up, but not because it appears that he's running away from anything; rather, it appears that he's just having too darn good a time... and I found that playfulness infectious.Brand, of course, can play the cheeky cad with his eyes shut, since that seems incredibly close to his real-life persona... and Gerwig is a nice foil for him as the centred yet dreamy girl who gradually makes him want to assume responsibility.Mirren uncovers yet another angle to an otherwise familiar role; stern and motherly as opposed to put-upon, like the previous Hobson... With some terrific one-liners from Peter Baynham (who has yet to write a bad comedy... ) this feels altogether lighter and sweeter than the established classic with the decidedly melancholic undertone... Maybe I'm naive and sentimental, but consciously and knowingly living in a fantasyland works for me... In truth, it's just more fun there.The only thing I genuinely do miss is the theme from Christopher Cross!

emasterslake In the original Arthur it was about an alcoholic millionaire with a youthful spirit and knows how to make others laugh. He ends up with a hard decision to either agree to marry a woman in a prearranged marriage and keep his fortune, or don't marry the woman and have his money cut off. The entire movie was filled with clever humor, great characters, and a well written script that made it a classic from the 80's. 30 years later, they decided to remake it only to borrow the plot and throw out every thing out the window.When it comes to remakes, they either do as well as the original, or it falls flat and is viewed as being inferior to the older version. The first minute watching it was a real intolerance and that's never a good thing if I don't enjoy the film right away. I am going to examine the changes they made to the characters, because I never felt this ashamed towards a remake in my whole life! First let's talk about Arthur in this remake, in the original he was short stature, likes to make jokes that do make you at least chuckle and is a real pleasure to have at any party if he existed in real life. The remake's Arthur is nothing compared to the one portrayed by Dudley Moore. Russell Brand does no justice to the role, he is way too tall, was never funny, and was way too obnoxious to be likable in anyone's standards. Could they not of casted a shorter actor for the part? Martin Freeman would of been a better choice, he had the right height and would of done the part of Arthur justice. Russell on the other hand made Arthur look like someone who requires medication to settle down. I know Arthur was meant to be drunk, but at least the original Arthur was at a steady level when intoxicated. This Arthur does stunts that look like they belong in a slapstick comedy. There was no advise on how Russell could of done differently for the part, he was just the wrong choice to start with. The moment he was casted, the film was already ruined.Now to talk about Hobson, who was the most drastically changed character for this remake. In the original Hobson was a male butler, in this film Hobson is a female nanny. The sex change on the character isn't the issue, its the idea of Arthur having a nanny to take care of him. He's like about 30, so having a nanny still take care of you at that age makes Arthur look more pathetic. Hobson in the original was perfect the way he was, if the character isn't broken don't fix it! There was a great chemistry between Hobson & Arthur in the original because despite him not being keen on Arthur's behavior, he does care for him and provided good support. In this film you do see moments between Arthur and his now female nanny, but it doesn't feel right to me. It doesn't feel realistic, imagine if Bruce Wayne had a nanny instead of Alfred for a butler? Would you say that would be normal or that Bruce has personal issues? I'm sure we can all agree that having a butler is more cool than having a nanny. Even Lara Croft had a butler for crying out loud!Now for the discussion on one more character that is wrong for this remake? Remember how Arthur fell in love with the spunky Linda Marolla in the original? Well she's no where to be found in this remake. They had the nerve to replace her with a woman who is no where as likable as Linda: Naomi Quinn. She is a typical cliché love interest found in every average chick flick. She doesn't even try to be Linda's replacement, because of how much of an opposite she is. The romance between her and Arthur was so unreal that I would have a hard time believing any woman in real life would find the remake's Arthur to be "attractive". Arthur & Linda's relationship was better in the original because that Arthur would be able to attract women compared to the remake's example.In conclusion, this remake is disgusting and has no right to be titled Arthur at all. Cause Russell Brand made Arthur an unlovable dolt who you wish you're able to beat up in a back alley until he is bruised all over and has to eat throw a straw for one month. The director turn it into a mediocre chick flick which it isn't. If you don't understand the concept of the original then you have a box office bomb waiting to blow up. The actors weren't doing their best at all and not a single one of them looked like they were enjoying their performances. I was glad that the film receive two Razzie nominations for worst actor and remake though it would of been awesome if the film won either category. The fact the film only made 30 million at the box office is proof that the public knew it was a lost cause to begin with. I just pray that will mean there will be no remake to Arthur 2 cause I'd hate to see how they'd mess up Fairchild in a remake. If you haven't seen the original, check it out, because it worth your time as oppose to this abomination that will rot into obscurity for the greater good of mankind.

callanvass (Plot) An alcoholic playboy stands to lose his inheritance if he doesn't manage to marry Susan Johnson (Garner) But Arthur falls for someone else instead, and things get chaoticI've seen both Arthur's, and I've actually managed to enjoy both of them. That's rare for me because it's usually the other way around, meaning I like the original, and wind up detesting the remake. Remakes are becoming very superfluous these days, but I couldn't help but enjoy this one. That cast was so much fun to watch, and they really did care about making sure the audience had a good time. It has its fair share of surprises, and also some big time laughs as well. I groaned when I heard Russell Brand was taking over for Dudley Moore, but he wound up surprising me by giving a fun performance. The real star of this movie is Helen Mirren, though. It was already entertaining without her, but she took the entertainment up a notch whenever she was on screen. Greta Gerwig was charming, whilst Jennifer Garner played the clingy love interest to a T.Final Thoughts: If you enjoyed the original Arthur, there is no reason you can't like this one as well, at least in my opinion. Give it a chance. It's pretty entertaining, and I recommend it7/10