Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 37 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 37
  2. Negative: 12 out of 37
  1. Reviewed by: Peter Travers
    Apr 7, 2011
    Gordon, who died shortly after the first Arthur, never had to see the luckless 1988 sequel that made his beloved characters seem like strangers. The new Arthur, insipid when it should be infectious, leaves the same deadly impression.
  2. Reviewed by: Marjorie Baumgarten
    Apr 7, 2011
    Arthur overextends its welcome and relies too much on prop comedy.
  3. 38
    Apparently, somebody thought it was time for a remake. Clearly, somebody was dead wrong.
  4. Reviewed by: Kyle Smith
    Apr 8, 2011
    Attempting to fill Dudley Moore's top hat in Arthur, Russell Brand rapidly descends the rungs of the comedy ladder from "unfunny" to "irritating" to "vulgar" to the bottom one - "Andy Dick."
  5. Reviewed by: Joe Neumaier
    Apr 8, 2011
    This Arthur is missing a soul.
  6. Reviewed by: Michael O'Sullivan
    Apr 7, 2011
    This Arthur is an exercise in time-travel tedium, a trip to the Land That Funny Forgot.
  7. Reviewed by: Kirk Honeycutt
    Apr 5, 2011
    In the end, it isn't so much that the New Arthur isn't the Old Arthur. Rather it's the anti-Arthur.
  8. 0
    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.
  9. Reviewed by: David Denby
    Apr 22, 2011
    Has so many things wrong with it that one can only stare at the screen in disbelief. [25 April, 2011 p. 89]
  10. Reviewed by: Betsy Sharkey
    Apr 7, 2011
    Meanwhile, Mirren, that grande dame of cinema, just seems tired. And who could blame her? She's in the midst of this disaster, literally and figuratively dying right in front of us. Made me want to cry, just not for Arthur.
  11. Reviewed by: Roger Moore
    Apr 7, 2011
    This Arthur is on the rocks long before Last Call.
  12. Reviewed by: Scott Tobias
    Apr 7, 2011
    This Arthur cravenly turns Susan into a monstrous status-seeker, making her less of a human being and thus much easier for Arthur to trample over in securing a meaningful adult relationship.
User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 73 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 10 out of 25
  2. Negative: 10 out of 25
  1. Apr 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'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 this really the best that they could do?! Full Review »
  2. Apr 10, 2011
    This review contains spoilers, click full review link 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. Full Review »
  3. Apr 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. Full Review »