DrChristers Despite my best efforts, I didn't hate this film as much as I thought I would. I don't like Russell Brand and I don't like his comedy. Scenes in this film meant to be driven by his comedic talents are dreadful. For example, the scene where he plays with the nail gun then shoots nails into Nick Nolte is more uncomfortable than funny - it's not all down to Brand though, Nolte is also awful in this film. The terrible thing is that his smile is definitely infectious and for the last 1/5 of the film he actually does manage to be likable.The unlimited money provides some excitement e.g. the Batman mobile and the DeLorean from Back to the Future, Grand Central station empty with acrobats, etc. Actually the settings are well chosen, beautiful and well shot. It doesn't cover up for Brand's clawing personality however. Jennifer Garner (Susan) does psychotic b*tch very well but even the presence of Helen Mirren (Hobson) can't cover for Brand's overacting.The only bit when I laughed was when a little boy asks Brand if he is a boy or a girl and Brand replies "it doesn't matter". Quite frankly, I'd imagine this interaction is based on real life. What saves this film is Brand getting sober at the end to get the girl, this is of course based on Russell's "Brand". In the last 1/5 of the film Brand managed to win me over to his side with his sobriety and somewhat reigned in acting.It's an okay film, though only really worth a watch though if you don't have anything else on the player. I was glad that I stuck it out till the end because I didn't hate Brand as much as I did at the beginning of the film.

jazgalaxy What an amazing, not-great movie.This movie fires on all cylinders, but unfortunately not all in the same direction.The story is light hearted and entertaining. The cast all transcend their roles and show off what smart people in broad movie roles can achieve if they work and have talent. The script is occasionally very clever. But above all, there is actual legitimate TRUTH and ROMANCE in this film. Everyone's motivation and personalities are believable, even amid the farce of the plot.The biggest problem of the film stems from it being a remake that keeps unnecessary elements for no reason. The biggest culprit is the biggest element of the film, which is that Brand portrays a drunk. I suppose there was a certain irony in casting Brand in the role, but the irony play out in that Brand does not play a convincing comedic drunk. Except for the scenes in which they take great care to demonstrate his possessing alcohol, one would forget that he even IS drunk. The greatest offense is that it is unnecessary. The alcoholic elements play into the film in order to justify Arthur's selfish excess. But many films have been made in the past 30 years with the same conceit minus the alcohol. Adam Sandler, perhaps, has most solidified our ability to believe in the man-child without the plot device of alcohol to buoy the concept. I would very much recommend this movie. It's clever, inoffensive and showcases a great deal of original wit from Brand and Mirren who are both so lovable that every second of screen time is a joy.

emasterslake In the original Arthur it was about an alcoholic millionaire with a youthful spirit and knows how to make others laugh. He ends up with a hard decision to either agree to marry a woman in a prearranged marriage and keep his fortune, or don't marry the woman and have his money cut off. The entire movie was filled with clever humor, great characters, and a well written script that made it a classic from the 80's. 30 years later, they decided to remake it only to borrow the plot and throw out every thing out the window.When it comes to remakes, they either do as well as the original, or it falls flat and is viewed as being inferior to the older version. The first minute watching it was a real intolerance and that's never a good thing if I don't enjoy the film right away. I am going to examine the changes they made to the characters, because I never felt this ashamed towards a remake in my whole life! First let's talk about Arthur in this remake, in the original he was short stature, likes to make jokes that do make you at least chuckle and is a real pleasure to have at any party if he existed in real life. The remake's Arthur is nothing compared to the one portrayed by Dudley Moore. Russell Brand does no justice to the role, he is way too tall, was never funny, and was way too obnoxious to be likable in anyone's standards. Could they not of casted a shorter actor for the part? Martin Freeman would of been a better choice, he had the right height and would of done the part of Arthur justice. Russell on the other hand made Arthur look like someone who requires medication to settle down. I know Arthur was meant to be drunk, but at least the original Arthur was at a steady level when intoxicated. This Arthur does stunts that look like they belong in a slapstick comedy. There was no advise on how Russell could of done differently for the part, he was just the wrong choice to start with. The moment he was casted, the film was already ruined.Now to talk about Hobson, who was the most drastically changed character for this remake. In the original Hobson was a male butler, in this film Hobson is a female nanny. The sex change on the character isn't the issue, its the idea of Arthur having a nanny to take care of him. He's like about 30, so having a nanny still take care of you at that age makes Arthur look more pathetic. Hobson in the original was perfect the way he was, if the character isn't broken don't fix it! There was a great chemistry between Hobson & Arthur in the original because despite him not being keen on Arthur's behavior, he does care for him and provided good support. In this film you do see moments between Arthur and his now female nanny, but it doesn't feel right to me. It doesn't feel realistic, imagine if Bruce Wayne had a nanny instead of Alfred for a butler? Would you say that would be normal or that Bruce has personal issues? I'm sure we can all agree that having a butler is more cool than having a nanny. Even Lara Croft had a butler for crying out loud!Now for the discussion on one more character that is wrong for this remake? Remember how Arthur fell in love with the spunky Linda Marolla in the original? Well she's no where to be found in this remake. They had the nerve to replace her with a woman who is no where as likable as Linda: Naomi Quinn. She is a typical cliché love interest found in every average chick flick. She doesn't even try to be Linda's replacement, because of how much of an opposite she is. The romance between her and Arthur was so unreal that I would have a hard time believing any woman in real life would find the remake's Arthur to be "attractive". Arthur & Linda's relationship was better in the original because that Arthur would be able to attract women compared to the remake's example.In conclusion, this remake is disgusting and has no right to be titled Arthur at all. Cause Russell Brand made Arthur an unlovable dolt who you wish you're able to beat up in a back alley until he is bruised all over and has to eat throw a straw for one month. The director turn it into a mediocre chick flick which it isn't. If you don't understand the concept of the original then you have a box office bomb waiting to blow up. The actors weren't doing their best at all and not a single one of them looked like they were enjoying their performances. I was glad that the film receive two Razzie nominations for worst actor and remake though it would of been awesome if the film won either category. The fact the film only made 30 million at the box office is proof that the public knew it was a lost cause to begin with. I just pray that will mean there will be no remake to Arthur 2 cause I'd hate to see how they'd mess up Fairchild in a remake. If you haven't seen the original, check it out, because it worth your time as oppose to this abomination that will rot into obscurity for the greater good of mankind.

edwardcking2001 I will not bang on about the differences between this and the original because there really is no point.Brand is the worst possible choice for a lead role in ANY movie, let alone the remake of a classic. I can't think for a moment what possessed them to cast Brand in a role that demands a charismatic, lovable rogue when Brand has all the charisma of a whelk and barely qualifies as a human being.There was no justification for this remake. They would have had to do at least ONE component better, but in their choice of lead, they ensured that this was always going to fail.