Movie Preview: Arthur!

By Michael Vass | April 3, 2011

This revisioned copy of the original film Arthur – starring Dudley Moore and Liza Minneli – probably can best be summed up by what I observed a friend say after seeing the television trailer,

“I thought the commercial with Betty White (for Hot In Cleveland) talking about Charlie Sheen was funnier than the movie (Arthur remake trailer) looks to be.”

Yes, as much as some may just love anything with Russell Brand, this does not portend to be a film that will mark his career for greatness. Not that the film fails to attempt to try and capture the emotion and hilarity of the original film. It tries to transpose several of the situations of the 80′s with the modern equivalent, and adding in more than a few PC trade-offs. Compared to much of the drivel that passes for entertainment these days, this is at least a fair attempt to suck money out of the pockets of the audience (and thankfully it is NOT in 3-D). But fair attempts are not humorous – at least in my opinion.

In 1981 when Dudley Moore played this role, there was a childish abandon and innocence about the character. You watched the film and could credibly believe that he was a man that never grew up. because he didn’t need to. That essense of the character is critical, because it makes every other transformation and selfless act grounded and engaging at the same time.

Russell Brand by comparison appears merely inept, willfully incapable of the simplist of actions, and pampered to a point of pomposity that is insulting. There appears to be no redeeming nature nor core qualities that make the revisioned Arthur more than a waste or inheritence and genetice material – essentially Paris Hilton. That may be entertaining to a generation that subsists on “reality” television – believing that lowest of common denominatiors is “quality” – but for the rest of us, it does not inspire laughter more often than not.

Another difference that is critical in the potential success of Arthur (the revisioned remake) is the portrayal of the title character’s man’s man. In ’81 the role was played by Sir John Gielgud as Hobson. This role was very critical as it is the moral center of Arthur, and the backbone of his growth. Hobson is the father and confidant, the guide that is seemingly ignored and underappreciated; yet is singularly the catalyst for the film.

In making Hobson a woman, the revisioned remake is going for a more PC-friendly feel. It creates more involvement with women in interactions besides the love interest (even if temporary) of Arthur. Which adds a dimension the original film did not have, yet it sacrifices the entire relationship between Arthur and Hobson. It is so severe a difference, a relationship so critical to the film that it must exist somewhere, that the role of Bitterman has been vastly expanded. (While that is great news for Luis Guzman, it again does not work in favor of the film or the audience)

Helen Mirren is a great actress, and I have respect and admiration for her work. But, she is not Sir Gielgud, and the character she is playing is only made impotent by her presence. Switching sexes of key charcters and therefore motivations of the film is NOT a simple and beneficial action. It may be PC, but it does nothing for the actress who deserves a fully fleshed out role, or the audience that deserve to enjoy the interactions that are now lacking in the film.

Also of importance, and removed due to an eye on political correctness, is the fact that Arthur takes place in a bubble that almost completely isolates the film from people of color and any other source of reality. In the 1981 original the only character that is seen of color (other than intermitent background characters) is Bitterman, the driver. Rather than this absence of reality in New York City making a statement on social morality or NYC, it defines how absurd the life of Arthur and the others in the film are. It emphasizes that there is a dellussion happening, one that requires copious amounts of alcohol to deal with.

In the 2011 revisioned remake, we lose all of that. The world is real (or at least as real as most movies will show). The absurdity is transposed from the bubble of people and culture to materialistic ownership. Arthur has toys, things that no one needs or are simply indulgences of excess. The message is not the same, and the effect on the viewer equally altered. Sadly, that is not to the benefit of the audience.

Ultimately, fans of Russell Brand will likely see this film no matter how poor it may be. He is a rising star in Hollywood, and the marketing is full on. Movie studios will use his popularity for every dime they can muster, while spending as little money as possible to earn it. Remeber, this is a remake, originality costs money and assumes risk. Russell Brand isn’t that big yet.

Fans of Helen Mirren might watch this, but I expect they will skip it. Likely they will see the fim for what it is. Hype and pretense and toys trying to obscure the flimsy backbone of a story and motivation that is left in this revisioned imperfection of a far superior film from 1981.

Fans of Luis Guzman will likely see the film because he just doesn’t get enough roles, so you take it as you can. Even if it is bad.

Thus overall, I can see how this film will make a profit. It likely will even top the chart for its opening weekend. But I also expect the film to drop ticket sales some 60% in week 2. Word of mouth will not keep this film floating, or allow it to compete with any film of either substance or enough action to distract.

Would I spend the $20 or more dollars per person that viewing a film in a theater these days requires (ticket cost, popcorn, drink, ect)? For this revisioned waste of time, not at all. Would I pay $20 for a DVD of this film and the inevitable bonus features (like deleted scenes)? Again no, the price does not reflect the quality or benefit to the audience in general. But when this film hits the bargain bin (if not at the same time it hits the basic cable networks) for $3 I might consider it. At least then I believe I will be getting fair trade on my money.

Only your support allows us to provide election coverage, event coverage, movie previews/reviews, and our entertainment/political commentary. Visit Alchemy at World of VASS, and/or World of Vass – help keep us going. We appreciate your support.