Arthur, el soltero de oro

"I have very poor and unhappy brains for drinking." Shakespeare's Othello

Russell Brand may not be as convincing a drunk as Dudley Moore in the original Arthur, but Brand makes the titular man-child as endearing as he could be given the premise of the comedy. Writer Peter Baynham brings some of the manic madness and tossed-off lines of Bruno to complement Brand's physicality for a pleasantly witty if not totally amusing satire of the idle rich.

Helen Mirren does well as his butler, Hobson, a middle-aged Mary Poppins, although decidedly darker. (Sir John Gielgud in the original would be tough to imitate.) Their relationship substitutes very nicely, thank you, for the lack of one between Arthur and his real mother (an effectively stiff Geraldine James). Her demand that he marry the social-climbing Susan (Jennifer Garner) or be disinherited is the romantic setup for him falling in love with "nobody" Naomi (Greta Gerwig). "Setup" for such set pieces as a deserted Grand Central Terminal with a "Pez" candy dinner and acrobats, a not terribly funny exhibition of Arthur's childlike charm.

I was greatly amused by the homage to Hitchcock, Rear Window specifically, when Arthur looks from his tub with golden binoculars at pedestrians who remind him of pop cult figures, some wittily chosen to resemble those close to him such as Hobson.

One of the small lessons of the film is that true love should be the reason for marriage, and more importantly AA is an effective solution for drinking problems. The film, after all, is about an immature rich man's discovering his inner man through sobriety. Doesn't sound that romantic, does it? Well, it isn't, even though the characters are enviably happy in the process, as is this movie-going experience.

"A very merry, dancing, drinking, laughing, quaffing, and unthinking time." John Dryden, the Secular Masque

I suspect that Russell Brand is a polarising personality in this world. Some find his idiosyncratic ways quite the put off. I, on the other hand, have always had a soft spot for old Rusty. I find him beguiling and very pleasant to watch.

I am not going to pontificate and deconstruct. This is a remake. I can't remember the Dudley Moore version but all I know is that this film was very charming. Fair enough, there are going to be no big surprises - no epiphanic moments. But what this has in bucket loads is a grand sense of heart.

Russell Brand is silly but underneath the silliness there is real, genuine stuff. You can see his heart break in a crescendo scene and if you let yourself you'll find you become very sympathetic to this lost boy. Jennifer Garner is scarily comfortable in the role of a-grade beyatch! Helen Mirren is just perfect as the man boy's nanny. Look, to be honest I am too lazy to get into nitty gritty stuff but this one is a winner if you are open enough to admit it.

Trust me. It's lovely.

This film is about a young alcoholic man who has to marry a woman whom he does not love, so that he can get his billion dollar inheritance from his mother.

"Arthur" is a lighthearted comedy about a rich young man, who is still a child at heart. He has no sense of responsibility, as he does not have to work for any of the material wealth he has. Despite his immaturity and egocentricity and childishness, Arthur is a likable character. If other comedians portray him, he would easily become irritating and even offensive. So well done to Russell Brand. The romantic comedy element is also engaging and entertaining, so I find "Arthur" a good film for brainless entertainment.

The original Arthur, was and is a great film. It was funny, well written and well acted. It garnered 4 Oscar nominations and 2 wins. It won 4 out of 5 Golden Globes. John Gielgud so deserved his award so well that year. Dudley Moore, in the title character, had the same lovable charm that Russel Brand has in this remake. But, there are several things missing which make the 2011 version an OK film, and not a part of cinema awards. First, its 2011 and not 1981. The original version would never be made today. Plain and simple. Arthur was a drunk. A hard drinker, who fell down, slurred words,and yes, even was driving drunk in several scenes. No way would that get approved today, or anyone think it was funny. It was this funny drunk that made Dudley's Arthur so much fun, even though today we would rush for interventions or rehab. Second, the director forgot this is a New York film. It is set in New York, but so much changed from one film to the other that the setting was indifferent here. No more neighborhood bars, dinners, landmark shopping sites, or eateries. There is one really good scene involving Grand Central, but it does not make up for the lack in the rest of the film. Linda becomes Naomi in the new film. She is not a New Yorker. Does not look like one, or act like one. She plays the part well, but its just not the same. Again, this remake could be set anywhere. Can you imagine the original anywhere but NY! Third, as good as Helen Mirrim is, she is not the Hobson that John Gielgud presented. She will not get any awards for this presentation. So, if you do not make any comparisons, you will like the film, but most likely not fall in love with it for 30 years. The film is well acted, written in parts, but it steals one lines too much from the original, that just seemed forced here or are not well placed. Whereas we see Arthur drink, he never really seems drunk. The relationship with Hobson is presented as a mother/son, rather than father/son. It was hard to believe in the relationship as much as the previous film. The chemistry between Arthur and Naomi was believable and flow very well throughout the film. Susan Johnson, played by Jennifer Garner had much more of a role here than the original. It needed to be reverted back. It was just not funny. Lastly, Nick Nolte was just plain horrible and nasty. He could have been written out completely. It made no sense for plot development. So, the new Arthur is as an OK remake, but not as good as it could have been.

Was this remake horrible? No, but it also wasn't that great. In only a couple of scenes did this film lift itself above mediocrity. In comparing this update to the 1981 version, the original is simply better on every point. Russell Brand is probably the best choice they could make for the lead, but he doesn't measure up to Dudley Moore's Arthur. And the wonderful Helen Mirren does her best, but she just can't match John Gielgud's witty portrayal of Hobson. The writing fell particularly short of the mark. The one bright spot for me was Greta Gerwig, whom I had not previously seen. She did a fine job of making a thinly-written character become real. I look forward to seeing her in the future.