Great Film overall

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Arthur (2011): Dir: Jason Winer / Cast: Russell Brand, Helen Mirren, Greta Gerwig, Jennifer Garner, Nick Nolte: Remake of the successful 1981 hit starring Dudley Moore as the lovable drunk. This time out it is Russell Brand as the rich playboy who squanders his money on excessive drinking and carrying on. Central plot regards his riches under threat when his mother arranges that he marry a snobby wealthy woman, played by Jennifer Garner whose intentions are to get his signature and increase her wealth and position. Director Jason Winer is backed by colourful locations but unlike the original, the humour is completely drained. The first problem is that Brand plays Arthur more as a big kid who hasn't grown up, while the alcoholism that made Moore so funny is a distant thought. He attempts to find work but fails. He wants out of this arranged marriage and finds solitude in a tour guide. None of this is interesting and Brand can merely recite. Helen Mirren plays his nanny in a role that was played by John Gielgud in the original, only he was a butler. Mirren is a good actress but she travels predictable grounds here, particularly when health issues surface. Greta Gerwig has the thankless role as potential mate in a role Liza Minnelli played well in the original. Gerwig's role is as straight forward as it can get. Garner starts out fine as the snide fiancée but she quickly becomes standard issue especially since we know the wedding won't happen. Nick Nolte plays her father who will becomes Arthur's nemesis. It is not a career highlight for Nolte but more like a terrible joke. Dreadful remake that is enough to drive a person to drinking. Score: 3 / 10

When a remake goes bad it usually is just a water downed useless retread like Gus Van Sant's Psycho, or an honest effort that just doesn't connect such as Tim Burton's Charlie and The Chocolate Factory. Compared to Dudley Moore's Arthur, a bona-fide classic, one wonders why so little effort was put into the remake with shoddy performances, poor writing and uninspired direction. It doesn't even rise to the level of a direct-to-RedBox sequel, Arthur 3: Nephew of Arthur, if you will. And that's the big problem here, its so bad it's like a low- budget sequel along the lines of Mask 2 or Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd except those were much better films. There was one other remake like this that I can remember and that was Chris Rock's Down to Earth, a very poor reworking of Warren Beatty's Academy Award nominated film Heaven Can Wait. When it comes to comedies Hollywood can't rise to the occasion of remaking classics. The best they can do is tackle action remakes by including CGI effects that weren't available for previous versions. Which is why sci-fi remakes (Spielberg's War of the Worlds, Keanu Reeves' The Day The Earth Stood Still) that require a strong script fail despite great special effects. I'm not opposed to remakes, one is often reminded that the Wizard of Oz was a remake, but it was remade in 1939. Today, Hollywood can't rise to the occasion with scripts even when given a head start with a proved story line. All they can do is superhero films which are 90 percent CGI and 10 percent whatever you call comic book writing. Scripted comedies seem to be dead giving way to parody films and the type of lunacy by Will Farrell or Seth Rogen that if you're not drunk its not very funny. But in the case of the remake of Arthur, being drunk only reminds you of how funny the original was compared to this piece of crap.

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.

For a romantic comedy, then "Arthur" is a pretty straight run of the mill. Fairly generic storyline, that is predictable to the core, as is with most movies in this genre.The comedy used in the movie is great and right to the point. Lots of hilarious moments, dialogue and situations, and as such, the movie really delivers right on.The storyline, as generic as it is, is about a rich and drunk playboy named Arthur who is to marry a corporate woman, as requested by his estranged mother. If he fails to do so, he will have his multi million dollars stripped from his good name. However, Arthur is caught between having to please his mother and marry the woman he doesn't love, or follow his heart and go to the woman whom he loves honestly and truly, and thus say good bye to his million dollar lifestyle.I will say that the people they had hired for the various jobs did good work with their given characters. But personally, it is a bit too strained by now to watch Russell Brand play yet another alcoholic rich guy, it is wearing a bit thin already. The movie was so well carried by the performance of Helen Mirren."Arthur" is a good and entertaining movie. However, if you are the least bit familiar with the romantic comedy genre, then you will not find anything new or remarkably innovating in this movie. But still, "Arthur" entertains at all the right moments.