Arthur

A fairly close remake of the great 1981 Dudley Moore movie, with pleasures of its own.

The new Arthur is a feathery screwball satire, competent on its own terms, yet as the movie went on I found it increasingly hard to separate the character's self-indulgence from that of the actor playing him.

The star does his patented shtick, supported by a handful of blue-chip supporting performers, as the story lurches through contrived, seminaughty comic set pieces toward a sentimental ending.

It seems a bit cruel to cast Garner, who exudes charm, in such a charmless role.

Even the Brit-wit chemistry of Russell Brand and Helen Mirren can't offset the self-conscious degree to which this tame, calculated effort sticks to its source.

Arthur overextends its welcome and relies too much on prop comedy.

In Arthur, the spectacularly grating remake of Steve Gordon's 1981 P. G. Wodehouse simulation (this time, Peter Baynham miswrote, Jason Winer misdirected), Russell Brand gives a career-killing performance.

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 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.

Arthur is a mixed bag, it's not a bad comedy it's just not a really good one. There are some laugh out loud moments in here, but when it tries to add some emotional moments into the mix the movie suffers and just becomes plain boring. As for Russell Brand's performance it could have been better, but that might just be the scripts fault. I couldn't tell if Arthur was an annoying drunk, guy with a heart of gold, or just a dumb man-child. There are some really funny moments in here that had me rolling, but I really can't recommend you put up with the rest of the movie to see them. All in all it's funny but there are better options out there.

I didn't enjoy this as much as I thought as there was nothing but CORN(y) involved. Russell Brand's one character might need to evolve now before his talent gets washed up.

When I heard they were remaking Arthur with Russell Brand as the lead, my immediate thought was, "BRILLIANT!" Not so much. While the movie actually did modernize the story pretty well, I always saw Dudley Moore as an immature adult rather than Russell's portrayal as a flat-out child. To give credit, the story with the female Hobson actually fit very well. Helen was fantastic, given the weak material. Hearing some lines completely word-for-word repeated in this version made me cringe when I heard them. I went into this with low expectations and they were met, but in hindsight, Arthur should have never been remade. The original is just too classic.

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 the first 30 minutes.