User Score
5.0

Mixed or average reviews- based on 73 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 35 out of 73
  2. Negative: 23 out of 73

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Apr 8, 2011
    4
    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 gem...is this really the best that they could do?! Expand
  2. Apr 10, 2011
    3
    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. Apr 10, 2011
    0
    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.
  4. Apr 8, 2011
    0
    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.
  5. Apr 8, 2011
    2
    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 to sit through his pathetic attempt at comedy.
  6. Apr 26, 2011
    3
    This review contains spoilers. 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. Collapse
  7. Jul 26, 2011
    3
    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.
  8. Jan 29, 2012
    3
    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. Expand
  9. Aug 25, 2011
    4
    A once mediocre movie starring Dudley Moore now seems rather exciting compared to this lifeless, pointless remake which has nothing to offer apart from a handful of quirky moments linked with obscene wealth (like having Hollyfield as your personal boxing trainer, etc).
  10. Apr 16, 2011
    4
    Too unfunny, i was making a lot of effort to laugh, but i was unable to.....brand doing again a pathetic performance and im really sad about Mirren being on this movie...a great actress , just a bad role
  11. May 12, 2011
    0
    Watching the original a while ago I wondered why anyone would remake that movie. Now I want to shout out a huge thank you to Russell Brand for the remake because I thought the only thing in the original worth watching was John Gielgud, but now I realize that it also has the benefit of not including Russell Brand. I was just about to give this piece of garbage a 3 because of Helen Mirren, but seeing that some foop going by ferg0 gave it a 10 to raise the score, I have to drop my 3 to a 0 to correct her attempt to skew things. Expand
  12. Nov 27, 2011
    0
    Seeing the original, the memorable, hilarious, heartfelt original, There is only one emotion I can express when walking out of this film. Anger. Powerful anger.
  13. Sep 2, 2011
    2
    Russell Brand irritates the hell out of me. Thereâ
Metascore
36

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: David Denby
    Apr 22, 2011
    10
    Has so many things wrong with it that one can only stare at the screen in disbelief. [25 April, 2011 p. 89]
  2. Reviewed by: James White
    Apr 21, 2011
    60
    Brand fan? You'll likely enjoy his antics. But Russellophobics would be better off seeking out the original.
  3. 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.