BLOGS

Arthur: Why? Why???

by admin 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!

Comments

SHARE THE SNARK

X

Get the most of your experience.
Share the Snark!

See content relevant to you based on what your friends are reading and watching.

Share your activity with your friends to Facebook's News Feed, Timeline and Ticker.

Stay in Control: Delete any item from your activity that you choose not to share.

MOST RECENT POSTS

BLOG ARCHIVES

Movies Without Pity

March 2014

6 ENTRIES

February 2014

7 ENTRIES

January 2014

6 ENTRIES

December 2013

12 ENTRIES

November 2013

14 ENTRIES

October 2013

12 ENTRIES

September 2013

8 ENTRIES

August 2013

9 ENTRIES

July 2013

11 ENTRIES

June 2013

12 ENTRIES

May 2013

9 ENTRIES

April 2013

8 ENTRIES

March 2013

16 ENTRIES

February 2013

8 ENTRIES

January 2013

6 ENTRIES

December 2012

11 ENTRIES

November 2012

12 ENTRIES

October 2012

13 ENTRIES

September 2012

11 ENTRIES

August 2012

17 ENTRIES

July 2012

8 ENTRIES

June 2012

13 ENTRIES

May 2012

12 ENTRIES

April 2012

14 ENTRIES

March 2012

20 ENTRIES

February 2012

9 ENTRIES

January 2012

7 ENTRIES

The Latest Activity On TwOP