Review of Arthur

Arthur (I) (2011)
1/10
Arthur-Gives Remakes Their Bad Name
8 April 2011
Why, why, why did they remake the Dudley Moore classic. My guess is that Hollywood has finally run out of ideas. Russell Brand attempts to re create the lovable Dudley Moore drunk playboy character-and fails miserably. Helen Mirren-a fine actress gives what is arguably her worst performance in a role she obviously did for a paycheck. About all she does is scowl and have a mean, exasperated expression on her face.Rest of cast is pretty non descript as is the story, screenplay, and direction. Everything in this wet turd of a movie falls flat on its face, and the director didn't even try to redeem it. Guess he knows the score. He was paid to turn in a movie and he does just that. Only thing is that this waste of celluloid is not a movie. It is just another product of contemporary Hollywood , a heartless and soulless Hollywood that has absolutely no clue on how to make a real movie. About the only good thing in this bomb are some of the on-location New York sites where this was filmed, but Grand Central Station looks like a leftovcer set from Superman II. Do yourself a favor. Save your gas and 11 bucks, stay away from the multiplex playing this atrocity and rent the Dudley Moore original. There is absolutely no comparison between the real thing and the remake. The kind of film that should never have been made in the first place. If you are sucker enough to pay good money to see this Dudley-less dud, demand a refund! Any wonder why movie-going in the US is down by 20 percent? Crap films like this are the reason!
26 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed