Read User Reviews and Submit your own for Arthur (2011)

7

jyo_tirmayaApr 26, 2012

Hardly what one would call a "hit," but easily digested by the way Russell Brand carries himself - making the best use of a bad bargain. Let's not take ourselves too seriously here. There have been worse movies which, in time, became cult classics!

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

0

cutnshootApr 10, 2011

This film??!! is like having to watch Tiny Tim on bad acid cut with speed in a room with no doors. There is bad and there is bad and there is BAD. This movie wins big on all three counts.

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

4

MovieGuyBrianApr 8, 2011

Arthur he does what he pleases - which, apparently, is to come up with nary a shred of original thought. It's an un-calculated, rushed and by-the-numbers remake with a little bit of heart and almost no soul...but it's not awful. It'sArthur he does what he pleases - which, apparently, is to come up with nary a shred of original thought. It's an un-calculated, rushed and by-the-numbers remake with a little bit of heart and almost no soul...but it's not awful. It's meandering and hollow with glimmers of promise, faint touches of cute and a whole lot of harmless, reigned-in Russell Brand humor taking center stage. Let's say the filmmakers truly were caught between the moon and New York City in recreating an 80's gem...is this really the best that they could do?!… Expand

5 of 8 users found this helpful53

All this user's reviews

3

MarcDoyleApr 10, 2011

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It has a few fun moments, but its true worth comes from its reminding you of how good the original is. Dudley & Liza are so incredibly good, and they tower over Brand & Gerwig. And what the hell happened to Nick Nolte? He looks like a sunburned Nick Nolte blow-up doll in this movie. The 3 points I give to this film all belong to Mirren (who is brilliant), but she's not nearly enough to put it into recommended territory. The scene from the original in which the grandmother decides that "No Bach will be Poor" and gives him the money was priceless - and it's completely lost in this version. And all the comedy from Liza Minelli's dad in the original - lost in this one as well. Oh well - they dumbed it down like everything else it seems.… Expand

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

10

BirtApr 8, 2011

There is a lot of urban humor in this film which might not be appreciated by some movie goers. Many critics who saw the original 1981 â

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

0

BartApr 8, 2011

I thought a comedy was supposed to be funny. The original with Dudley Moore was maybe not great, but at least good. The new version was as funny as what I left in the toilet this morning.

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

2

SGITApr 8, 2011

I can't say much for the movie/screenplay itself. It was just lame, boring and flat. But Russell Brand was horrible, annoying and insufferable. He looked bad enough in the trailers but the movie was even worse.
He should have to pay us toI can't say much for the movie/screenplay itself. It was just lame, boring and flat. But Russell Brand was horrible, annoying and insufferable. He looked bad enough in the trailers but the movie was even worse.
He should have to pay us to sit through his pathetic attempt at comedy.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

8

EliteF50Apr 13, 2011

I certainly enjoyed Arthur. I didn't expect much of it, but it really surprised me. I'm a fan of Russel Brand, and I think he just knocked it out of the park. He was as hilarious as he always is, and his interactions with Helen Mirren wereI certainly enjoyed Arthur. I didn't expect much of it, but it really surprised me. I'm a fan of Russel Brand, and I think he just knocked it out of the park. He was as hilarious as he always is, and his interactions with Helen Mirren were very funny. Overall, the cast was terrific. The jokes ranged from random babbling to genuine belly laughs. If you've got nothing else to do and want to kill some time, watch Arthur!… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

3

kingshahidJul 26, 2011

This movie had its moments in being funny. The lead's role could be realistic and apply to some. Considering it went under comedy - it doesn't fit the category. The movie lacked any memorable moments and became a lag to sit through after theThis movie had its moments in being funny. The lead's role could be realistic and apply to some. Considering it went under comedy - it doesn't fit the category. The movie lacked any memorable moments and became a lag to sit through after the first 30 minutes.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

8

yesstilesApr 19, 2011

Sweet and very enjoyable. This is not the kind of Farrelly Brothers-type experience you'd expect with Brand starring. Instead we're treated to a nice, entertaining lovable movie.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

10

ferg0Apr 9, 2011

I don't know if I give this movie a 10 exactly, but I'm using my power of the vote to bump up the rating as best I can. This is a far cry from what was the awful "Get him to the Greek." I think through this movie Brand really has arrived onI don't know if I give this movie a 10 exactly, but I'm using my power of the vote to bump up the rating as best I can. This is a far cry from what was the awful "Get him to the Greek." I think through this movie Brand really has arrived on the scene, and any fan of his I'm sure will appreciate this movie for all that it is. I'd recommend it to anyone looking to share a laugh, bring your best friend.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

10

BINFORDApr 13, 2011

I found this version to be much better/funnier than the Dudley Moore version.
If this movie is a sample of what Russell Brand can do he has a bright future.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

2

TheMudDoctorSep 2, 2011

Russell Brand irritates the hell out of me. Thereâ

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

10

TheEPICOneJan 8, 2013

epic

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

3

ShiiraApr 26, 2011

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Arthur Bach(Dudley Moore) is going nowhere fast. In the original 1981 version of "Arthur", the millionaire drunk races his Porsche around a circular track, and even though the late filmmaker doesn't overemphasize the point with an extended long take like Sofia Coppola did in "Somewhere", even the most amateur of semiologists can locate the metaphor. Johnny Marco, the famous film star who makes revolution after revolution on a deserted motorway in the Coppola film, like Bach, the perpetually inebriated heir to a major corporation, is no stranger to melancholy despite all appearances of having it all. If Johnny only had a snobby butler with a pithy manner of speaking. Hobson(John Gielgud) won't have none of Arthur's moaning and groaning about being unloved and miserable. Despite being a transplanted Brit, you can never really take the Englishman out of the English, and people from the U.K. believe in a stiff upper lip, not a quivering lower one. After Arthur removes both his helmet and goggles upon Hobson's request, the longtime manservant(and surrogate father) promptly slaps him in the face like an anal-retentive mobster, while calling Bach a "selfish bastard" for good measure. The unhappy playboy catches the customarily stoic old man at his breaking point. Hobson's opinion on "what's the worst part of being [Arthur]" differs from his arrested developing charge, and although he loves the "little s*it", the valet can take only so much narcissism and ignorance. He sets Arthur straight, overstepping his bounds as a mere servant by dealing out some light corporal punishment, like a father. That's what Johnny needs: a few b*tch slaps to the face for being so out of touch with the way people of lesser means live, but the only prominent male in the actor's life, Sammy(Chris Pontius), is an enabler, a playmate for both Marco and his daughter Chloe(Elle Fanning), a girl too young to be the steadying influence that the overgrown child needs. That's what the new Arthur(Russell Brand) needs too, a father figure; a butler instead of a nanny, as suggested by the movie itself in the opening scene where the much taller(and less lovable) layabout rams his Batmobile into an anatomically correct bull statue. Considering that the new "Arthur" places the well-heeled millionaire into a personal world dominated by strong women, a pointed juxtaposition presents itself through Arthur's close proximity to the bull's gigantic golden testicles. It's an insinuation of a man, a mama's boy who's been emasculated by the fairer sex. Recast as a woman, Hobson(Helen Mirren) treats Arthur as if he was still a boy, reading to him a children's book about a frog and a toad before he's put asleep. The butler, on the other hand, may tend to his employer's needs, but he does so with a sense of irony, by never coddling Arthur to such an unhealthy extent. Following his master's request that he should draw him a bubble bath, Gielgud sarcastically quips, "Perhaps you'd like me to come in there and wash your d*ck for you," and in the waiting room of his father's workplace, Gielgud's Hobson makes a dry joke about going for ice cream, as a response to Arthur's insistence on acting like a petulant child. In the presence of his father, Stanford Bach, Arthur learns the bargaining terms associated with his upcoming engagement to Susan Johnson(Jill Eikenberg). Marry the woman, or lose seven hundred fifty million dollars. In the remake, the conditions are the same, but not the sex of the blackmailer. Ms. Bach, working in concert with a completely revamped Susan(no longer the doormat who loves Arthur unconditionally in the original), lays the law down to her son, in which his fiancee, Vivienne's top lieutenant in the family company, views marriage as a business partnership. Susan is ashamed of the stigma tied to "new money", therefore undermining her blue collar father's pride in being a self-made man. She wants the Bach name. Susan doesn't love Arthur. And yet, the unlicensed tour guide hardly seems the right fit for the playboy either. Of all things, she tells bedtime stories. He already has Hobson for that. Earlier in this new "Arthur", echoing the scene where Gielgud slaps around Moore on the race track, Mirren knocks out Brand with a swift right while former heavyweight champion Evander Holyfield looks on. Since Hobson had breastfed Arthur well-past an age which society would deem acceptable, she should tell him that the punch is a pointed one, a wake-up call to finally grow up. Unlike the butler, the nanny doesn't really prepare Arthur for adulthood. The man-child sees himself as Batman, but really, he's more the Robin-type, the sidekick. He's Batman by default, since the chauffeur, another enabler, seems to be his only male friend. In the original "Arthur", Hobson is clearly the Caped Crusader to the titular character's boy in "short pants". Sometimes a woman can't do a man's job.… Expand