Arthur, un amour de milliardaire

I absolutely despise Russell Brand so naturally I assumed that I would not like this movie one bit. That, however, was not at all the case. Sure, the movie started with Brand's typical ridiculous antics and obnoxiousness but it turned out to be quite entertaining. Brand, for once, was able to actually make the transition from ridiculous idiot to still idiotic but also charming with his humor. Also, Helen Mirren stole the movie. She is truly something else. I don't think I'd be alone in saying she is one of the premier actresses in Hollywood. Her character's dry humor but strength and caring shined through perfectly and was the highlight of the film. Garner and Gerwig's characters are also pretty interesting. Garner doesn't really step outside the box with this performance but it was still solid. I was pleasantly surprised with Gerwig though. I had never seen her in a meaningful role and she was very solid in portraying her emotions. All in all the movie was just a pretty good film and it was definitely worth watching.

Let me start this off by saying that I have never seen the original Arthur. There is also no sense in me going over the plot or the differences between this and the original because that is covered in so many different reviews and I am guessing this isn't the only review that you will read. I am 29 years old and I wouldn't even consider myself a Russell Brand fan but after seeing this movie that is starting to change.

I went into Arthur with an open mind. I did not have another movie to compare it to, since I didn't see the original, and I throughly enjoyed the movie. Russell Brand was OK in 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall' and I really didn't enjoy his movie "Get Him to the Greek" but Arthur was a different type of comedy compared to his typical work. The best thing I can compare this movie to is "The Wedding Singer". Not because of the plot or the actors but because "The Wedding Singer" put Adam Sandler in a slightly toned down more caring/romantic version of things had done before. There was less slap stick and I actually ended up liking Adam Sandler more because of it. The same can be said about Arthur. This isn't OVER THE TOP Russell Brand like most of his other movies. I wouldn't say it's 'down to earth' Russell Brand either, more like some place in between.

Even if you have seen the original try to go to see this movie and not compare it to the original. It's the same as The Dark Knight vs Batman with Michael Keaton. Both were good movies but you couldn't really compare them.

What surprised me at the end of the movie was my brother (32 years old) saying he actually liked this better than the original, which he watched last weekend. He said the one liners were better and Russell Brand made a more convincing drunk. My guess is because Russell is probably always this drunk when he isn't filming movies!

Arthur made me laugh out loud, which is something I typically don't do. The story was decent (typical romantic comedy) and even though the movie slowed down about 3/4 of the way in, it had to because of the story. Do yourself a favor and see this movie at some point. It doesn't have to be in the theater since there aren't any eye popping sound effects or state of the art 3D in it...(though the city of New York was a GORGEOUS back drop)

Go see it. Turn your brain off for a bit and enjoy the movie for what it is. Don't compare it to the original but compare it to the other things Russell has done and you will see that he might actually have a great future at comedy ahead of him.

Final Verdict: 8 out of 10

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.

Being a fan of Dudley and the original movie, I started watching this with some trepidation, probably ready to unleash criticism at the slightest weakness. You soon, however, realise that this is a completely different take on the idea and I had the feeling that everyone was perhaps trying a little too hard to be funny. There was certainly some snappy dialogue and it was a colourful, slushy experience that didn't succumb to my notoriously low boredom threshold.

Overall, a lot of fun, despite some slightly nervy acting in places and a few scripting issues. Not laugh out loud like dear old Dudley, but an admirable attempt when you consider just how good the original was.

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.