Yes, Russell Brand does drink in the remake of the 1981 comedy “Arthur.”
But Brand doesn’t duplicate Dudley Moore’s personality schism, from child-like playboy to rip-roaring drunk, that made the original so indelible. And Brand’s version even visits an AA meeting.
Moore’s Arthur wouldn’t drink to that.
But giving audiences a kinder, less inebriated “Arthur” isn’t the kiss of death one imagines. The new “Arthur” may not equal the original, which shines just as brightly today as it did 30 years ago. But Brand’s effervescent turn as a very, very rich Peter Pan in a top hat has its winsome moments.
It helps that Brand surrounds himself with a killer cast, including the reigning queen of the mumblecore movement, Greta Gerwig.
Arthur Bach (Brand) wishes he had a dime for every dime he has, to paraphrase the original film. He spends his days finding new ways to unburden his wallet, and that often means getting plastered and hanging out with his chauffeur, Bitterman (Luis Guzman). The other constant in his life is Hobson (Helen Mirren), the nanny who attempts to bring his life into a semblance of order.
The zillionaire’s shopping spree ends when his mother (Geraldine James) insists he marry Susan (Jennifer Garner), a socialite tough enough to whip Arthur into shape. If Arthur refuses, his inheritance will disappear like so many bar pretzels.
Arthur decides to go along with the arranged marriage but has a change of heart when he meets Naomi (Gerwig), an unaffected beauty who sells tours of Grand Central Station sans permit. The two share a child-like appreciation for life, but Arthur knows if he pursues Naomi he’ll be penniless.
What a sobering thought.
The new “Arthur” isn’t soaked in gin like the source material. Yes, Arthur drinks, but he’s never so sloppy drunk that he makes an arse out of himself. Part of that may be due to Brand’s very screen presence. He always looks a bit … off. So playing drunk doesn’t seem like such a stretch.
The new film’s attempts to improve on the “Arthur” formula yield mixed results. Susan enjoys a richer back story here, which makes her improbable desire to marry Arthur credible. But the filmmakers turn Susan into a sexual predator, and Garner is always too eager to blow out a performance.
Having Arthur find a job mid-film is another debacle. The ensuing slapstick, including Brand mucking it up as a Gummy Bear, feels like it was thrown in after a bad test screening.
No one could replace Sir John Gielgud as Hobson, Arthur’s stuff butler. Mirren does her level best, and manages to make the gender switch casting a minor plus. Nick Nolte, cast as Susan’s grumpy dad, should have more screen time to scrape up against Arthur. The two actors couldn’t be more dissimilar. Instead, their initial meeting is interrupted by a lame nail gun gag.
Remaking “Arthur” made little sense in the first place. But let’s toast the chance Brand’s version will entice movie goers to revisit the original.
(Note: If you liked this review, please share it with one of the social media buttons below. If you disagree, let me know!)
Related posts:
on 
on 
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Well, the original Arthur just got the Blu-Ray treatment (according to the April 5th release information posted at Romantic Comedies Online) so this bodes well for younger audiences that may have missed the comic gem (I saw it on the big screen).
The whole “Gummy Bear” stunt sounds god-awful. At least in the original comic masterpiece Arthur was expected to go to work in business for Susan’s father. This makes MUCH more sense.
Everyone should check out the made for HBO original documentary “Born Rich” to see that acting in a gummy bear costume would be so far beneath these people that it is imbecilic.
Arthur gets a job in retail? There’s a reason Arthur is remembered fondly while Arthur 2 is best forgotten.
ARTHUR should move to wholesale-the wholesale discount racks at your local Blockbuster-two things that will be irrelevant in about 2 months!
I am afraid that the mindless drivel is too close to the point of no return for me to watch this movie. Fortunately for Russell Brand there are enough uneducated, consumer oriented teenagers who need a two hour break from their video games to garner a profit of one sort or another. The sum total of my attention to Arthur is found in this comment.
Id rather spend more time re-reading your criticism on Arthur than thinking about this “mindless drivel” Unfortunately, Im barraged by endless commercials for this crap, esp since theyre on all sports events, prime-time shows, and movies. Im hoping it will finally put the nail on the coffin of this untalented, drunken, liberal limey!
I’m not a teenager and I enjoyed this film – btw, I also enjoy the music of Mozart, the poetry of Rumi and Goethe, and the films of Fellini, so enjoying transcendental art and mere entertainment are not mutually exclusive as Mr. Lewis seems to imply.
Brutony, whats wrong w/ being a liberal firstly, and a limey secondly?!
I’m sure this isn’t as good as the original (it was made b4 i was born) but it was decently entertaining, and for fans of Mr. Brand, its well worth the watch, though his character here isn’t nearly as entertaining as Brand’s roles in Sarah Marshall and Greek.
Sorry you never saw the first, but why dont you do that before listening to your next Mozart concert or reading the latest poems by Romney and the Goths. Even though it was made before you were born, I do believe theres a magic machine that can bring it back again called a VCR where you can see movies made BEFORE YOU WERE BORN! WOW, HUH? Once you see that, then come around and tell me what you think of Dudley Moore compared to this hack! And the commercials for this were DREADFUL!