Arthur: Why? Why???

by Mindy Monez April 8, 2011 6:00 AM
Arthur: Why? Why???

I'd open this review by asking why we need a remake of a 30-year-old Dudley Moore movie starring literally anyone -- let alone starring the relentlessly annoying Russell Brand -- but I think that we all agree, without question, that we do not need this movie. But nevertheless, it exists, and it's Friday, so we must address just how bone-crushingly boring, pointless, stupid and wasteful of a perfectly good supporting cast talent it is.

Arthur Bach is the sole heir to a billion-dollar fortune. Since he's never had to work, and he clearly has some developmental disabilities that have gone untreated, he spends his days like a drunk toddler, downing champagne, vrooming a Batmobile all over Manhattan and not understanding very basic things about the world, like what a refrigerator is or what Grand Central Station is. His mother would like him to marry the cold, calculating businesswoman Susan (my beloved Jennifer Garner, who continues to kill me with her awful movie choices), but he doesn't want to because Susan is mean. He'd rather be with Naomi (mumblecore veteran Greta Gerwig), who is poor and writes stories about the Statue of Liberty being best friends with the Chrysler Building. Naomi's not quite as mentally deficient as Arthur is, but you can see why he likes her, if you know what I'm saying. There is also Helen fricking Mirren, who plays Arthur's nanny, and it's just so undignified I can't even discuss it, honestly. Not to mention the offensive waste of a good Luis Guzman as Arthur's chauffer. What the hell is anyone other than Russell Brand doing in this movie? I hope to god the money was good.

So blah, blah, blah, Arthur's mother threatens to cut him off if he doesn't marry Susan, he rebels, Naomi finds out about Susan, she gets mad, they break up, they get back together, Arthur becomes a better person, rote, rote, rote, formula, formula, formula. The entire movie is more of a platform for Russell Brand to deliver a series of one-liners while shirtless than it is an actual movie, and though I will admit to laughing at a few of them, they don't warrant a two-hour film. This new Arthur isn't significant enough to make Dudley Moore roll over in his grave, but it is bad enough to be akin to a tiny stick jabbing his corpse. It's annoying, but ultimately it's so pathetically weak you almost feel sorry for it.

Tell us what you thought of Arthur in the comments, then see our list of the most eccentric movie billionaires ever!

8 Comments

April 8, 2011 5:12 PM
citinsummik
Reply

I'm actually really excited for this, but I'm a Russell Brand fan, so what do I know.

April 9, 2011 1:05 AM
dfleprx
Reply

I liked the movie, but I also love Russell Brand. And Helen Mirren. And the Batmobile.

April 9, 2011 2:38 PM
Kaitlin
Reply

I don't understand the hate for Russell Brand from the TWOP staffers. Surely he's no more annoying than the likes of Adam Sandler.

April 9, 2011 5:40 PM
Jill
Reply

Look, I like Russell Brand. My Booky Wook is positively hilarious, and he stole Forgetting Sarah Marshall blind. That does NOT mean Arthur is any good. Because you know what? I didn't think it was. Unfortunately for everybody in it. So it doesn't matter if the reviewer likes or doesn't like Russell Brand. She didn't like the movie, and she gave ample reasons why, all of which I happen to agree with.

April 10, 2011 6:54 PM
Aziraphale
Reply

I really liked it. If you're not in the mood for a huge serving of fantasy wish fulfilment with a bit of redemption on the side, then this isn't going to work for you. On the other hand, if you don't mind that sort of thing, there's plenty to laugh at and enjoy here.

April 10, 2011 6:59 PM
Aziraphale
Reply
replied to comment from Kaitlin

Adam Sandler is by far more annoying. In fairness, though, I don't recall waves of love for Sandler ever coming from here either.

April 13, 2011 1:27 PM
Shelby
Reply

I saw this movie yesterday and I remember seeing it 30 years ago The reviewer, obviously, never saw the original since the remake barely veers from the first one. The only difference was this Arthur got sober. But almost every plot point remained the same.
They subbed the batmobile for Dudley Moore's vintage convertible and his butler is now his nanny. They gave J.Garner"s character more lines but the sociopathic father-in-law was still there.
If there's any criticism it would be that they didn't really "re-make" it.

May 23, 2011 3:09 PM
EDS
Reply

As pointless and ill-concieved as the Arthur remake was (even with a solid cast), don't forget the SEQUEL to Arthur (Arthur 2: On the Rocks...UGH!) was no less dismal and unworthy of the original...

Loading...

Add a comment

TWoP Toolbar

BLOG ARCHIVES

The Moviefile

January 2012

2 Entries

December 2011

27 Entries

November 2011

22 Entries

October 2011

22 Entries

September 2011

29 Entries

August 2011

27 Entries

July 2011

30 Entries

June 2011

25 Entries

May 2011

13 Entries

April 2011

23 Entries

March 2011

22 Entries

February 2011

33 Entries

January 2011

39 Entries

December 2010

21 Entries

November 2010

29 Entries

October 2010

23 Entries

September 2010

25 Entries

August 2010

26 Entries

July 2010

29 Entries

June 2010

36 Entries

May 2010

22 Entries

April 2010

26 Entries

March 2010

30 Entries

February 2010

19 Entries

January 2010

19 Entries

December 2009

15 Entries

November 2009

21 Entries

October 2009

27 Entries

September 2009

30 Entries

August 2009

28 Entries

July 2009

34 Entries

June 2009

27 Entries

May 2009

24 Entries

April 2009

23 Entries

March 2009

18 Entries

February 2009

30 Entries

January 2009

56 Entries

December 2008

51 Entries

November 2008

61 Entries

October 2008

102 Entries

September 2008

86 Entries

August 2008

99 Entries

July 2008

116 Entries

June 2008

95 Entries

May 2008

86 Entries

April 2008

67 Entries

March 2008

14 Entries