Review Arthur

Arthur, while purporting to be a comedy, has very serious issues, including alcoholism and death, as anyone who has seen the original can attest. (I think I would like to re-see the original to compare, but see below.)

Russell Brand plays Arthur, the role that Dudley Moore made famous. Helen Mirren plays Hobson, the role for which John Gielgud won an Oscar. Evidently Gielgud had some zingers that Mirren doesn't have, but I don't remember what they were without re-seeing the original Arthur.

I like Helen Mirren in every role she plays, and this is no exception. Russell Brand reminded me of Johnny Depp in this role, and he brought a kind of lighthearted childlikeness to it. As I remember, Dudley Moore had more pathos, but I could be wrong about that.

I give it at most 2 ** out of 5*****, simply because the drinking gets old in it for me. And I expected it. Book Girl did not expect it and was more distressed about it than I was.

Of course, who wouldn't want real love to win out!

The role of Susan is played by Jennifer Garner and she plays it to psycho-perfection. It's fun to see her in a 'bad' role -- you could feel sorry for her, if she weren't such a conniving b*tch. She connives and bullies.

The story
Arthur leads a dissolute life, complete (incomplete) with wine, women, song. He is a child in an adult's body. (Brand makes this believable.) Hobson still reads him bedtime stories, and he has a magnificent childlike mobile over his bed.

His mother gives him an ultimatum -- marry Susan or be cut off from his multi-million inheritance, and so the ball gets rolling.

He is not in love with Susan, and she quickly shows her true colors. She intends to shape him up. She loves his money, but not him. If she marries him, she will be promoted in his mother's company.

Her father is played by Nick Nolte, who is sufficiently rough around the edges.

This is a romance, after all, so Arthur meets a sweet girl (Greta Gerwig) who loves him and not his money.

All's well that ends well.

Have you seen it?
I know I would struggle to see it again, even as I would struggle to see Dudley Moore in the role of Arthur again. I don't find alcoholism particularly funny. And the elements of the story that lead to his alcoholism are hard to contemplate too (Arthur's father's death and his mother's lovelessness, abdicating her role as his mother.)

It does make me wonder why they would choose this movie to remake, especially since the first was so well executed and received (that's probably why -- easier to take a chance on a proven venue than a new one.)

What do you think?

Karin
www.savvythinker.com

Related posts:

1. Review: Lost in Austen DVD I don't know how I missed this one, but I vaguely, vaguely remember reading about the mini series when it was on TV. If you...
2. Review When in Rome Book Girl and I went to see this one the other day. I thought I was going to another movie -- Letters to Juliet! But...
3. Review Beastly Beastly is the new rendition of Beauty and the Beast, and very well done at that. Based on a book by the same name (which...
4. Review Red (movie) [originally published Oct 22, 2010] We really enjoyed Red when we saw it in the theater. It was fun and mayhem, partly predictable, as you...
5. Pink Panther 2 We had a lot of fun seeing this movie yesterday. Of course, you know it's going to be silly, and it was. And some of...