Arthur

Metascore
36

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 37 Critics What's this?

User Score
4.9

Mixed or average reviews- based on 76 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Starring: , ,
  • Summary: Irresponsible charmer Arthur Bach has always relied on two things to get by: his limitless fortune and the good sense of lifelong nanny Hobson to keep him out of trouble. Now he faces his biggest challenge--choosing between an arranged marriage that will ensure his lavish lifestyle or anIrresponsible charmer Arthur Bach has always relied on two things to get by: his limitless fortune and the good sense of lifelong nanny Hobson to keep him out of trouble. Now he faces his biggest challenge--choosing between an arranged marriage that will ensure his lavish lifestyle or an uncertain future with the one thing money can't buy, Naomi, the only woman he has ever loved. With Naomi's inspiration and some unconventional help from Hobson, Arthur will take the most expensive risk of his life and finally learn what it means to become a man, in this re-imagining of the classic romantic comedy "Arthur." (Warner Bros. Pictures)
    Expand
Watch On
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 37
  2. Negative: 12 out of 37
  1. Reviewed by: Roger Ebert
    Apr 7, 2011
    75
    A fairly close remake of the great 1981 Dudley Moore movie, with pleasures of its own.
  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. Reviewed by: Joe Williams
    Apr 8, 2011
    50
    With such a thin excuse for a leading man, Arthur is a dud.
  4. Reviewed by: Peter Rainer
    Apr 8, 2011
    42
    It seems a bit cruel to cast Garner, who exudes charm, in such a charmless role.
  5. Reviewed by: Pete Hammond
    Apr 6, 2011
    40
    This Arthur feels flat and lifeless, especially when compared to its highly successful predecessor.
  6. 38
    Apparently, somebody thought it was time for a remake. Clearly, somebody was dead wrong.
  7. 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.

See all 37 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 9 out of 26
  2. Negative: 11 out of 26
  1. Apr 8, 2011
    10
    There is a lot of urban humor in this film which might not be appreciated by some movie goers. Many critics who saw the original 1981 â
  2. Apr 9, 2011
    10
    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 fromI 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. Expand
  3. Apr 19, 2011
    8
    Sweet and very enjoyable. This is not the kind of Farrelly Brothers-type experience you'd expect with Brand starring. Instead we're treatedSweet and very enjoyable. This is not the kind of Farrelly Brothers-type experience you'd expect with Brand starring. Instead we're treated to a nice, entertaining lovable movie. Expand
  4. 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 offerA 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). Expand
  5. 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 movieWhen 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
  6. 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 andI 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.
    Expand
  7. 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 BrandWatching 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

See all 26 User Reviews

Trailers