Listonixio Fresh and Exciting

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

tbills2 Russell Brand's very cute and really quite funny as Arthur. Arthur's Brand's brightest starry moment moreso than Get Him to the Greek or Forgetting Sarah Marshall where he's less the shining focus. Arthur's unforgettable. It has rich visual sets and all the characters are very likable all played by Helen Mirren, Greta Gerwig, Jennifer Garner, Geraldine James, Nick Nolte, Luis Guzman. There's a whole lot to like about Arthur and really nothing wrong with it, so I love Arthur, and it's kind of too campy and draggy but it makes up for it by being thoroughly lovable. Arthur is really, really good with Greta Gerwig who's crazy gorgeous and Helen Mirren who's 65 making other women her age's beauty look pale in comparison, while Jennifer Garner's really hot.

adonis98-743-186503 A drunken playboy stands to lose a wealthy inheritance when he falls for a woman his family doesn't like. Despite Helen Mirren's and Jennifer Garner's unbelievable charm and comedic elements 'Arthur' has a main star that feels kinda miscasted and as cool as it might have been watching Val Kilmer's Batsuit from Batman Forever and the DeLorean from Back to the Future Brand is too silly to be taken serious. Greta Gerwig, Geraldine James, Luis Guzmán and Nick Nolte are also alright in their specific roles and overall this is a mediocre and 'ok' comedy that barely works thanks to the rest of the Cast.

finneganmichael04 I want to know why. Why did they remake this movie? Why do people think Russel Brand is funny or even likable? Why did they destroy the heart, the depth, the warmth of the first film with this crass, lazy, unfunny, steaming pile? Dudley Moore played a lovable drunk playboy in the original where Brand plays a rich drunk spoiled a-hole you wish would get hit by a bus. Why doesn't Hollywood come up with something original instead of murdering a pretty good, enjoyable old film. WHY? I gave Arthur 1 star based on the fact I liked the first one so much. And I hate Russell Brand and everything he's ever done. The only reason I can think of for that douche-bag even getting the role was his accent. Sure wasn't for his acting or great comedic flair.

emasterslake In the original Arthur it was about an alcoholic millionaire with a youthful spirit and knows how to make others laugh. He ends up with a hard decision to either agree to marry a woman in a prearranged marriage and keep his fortune, or don't marry the woman and have his money cut off. The entire movie was filled with clever humor, great characters, and a well written script that made it a classic from the 80's. 30 years later, they decided to remake it only to borrow the plot and throw out every thing out the window.When it comes to remakes, they either do as well as the original, or it falls flat and is viewed as being inferior to the older version. The first minute watching it was a real intolerance and that's never a good thing if I don't enjoy the film right away. I am going to examine the changes they made to the characters, because I never felt this ashamed towards a remake in my whole life! First let's talk about Arthur in this remake, in the original he was short stature, likes to make jokes that do make you at least chuckle and is a real pleasure to have at any party if he existed in real life. The remake's Arthur is nothing compared to the one portrayed by Dudley Moore. Russell Brand does no justice to the role, he is way too tall, was never funny, and was way too obnoxious to be likable in anyone's standards. Could they not of casted a shorter actor for the part? Martin Freeman would of been a better choice, he had the right height and would of done the part of Arthur justice. Russell on the other hand made Arthur look like someone who requires medication to settle down. I know Arthur was meant to be drunk, but at least the original Arthur was at a steady level when intoxicated. This Arthur does stunts that look like they belong in a slapstick comedy. There was no advise on how Russell could of done differently for the part, he was just the wrong choice to start with. The moment he was casted, the film was already ruined.Now to talk about Hobson, who was the most drastically changed character for this remake. In the original Hobson was a male butler, in this film Hobson is a female nanny. The sex change on the character isn't the issue, its the idea of Arthur having a nanny to take care of him. He's like about 30, so having a nanny still take care of you at that age makes Arthur look more pathetic. Hobson in the original was perfect the way he was, if the character isn't broken don't fix it! There was a great chemistry between Hobson & Arthur in the original because despite him not being keen on Arthur's behavior, he does care for him and provided good support. In this film you do see moments between Arthur and his now female nanny, but it doesn't feel right to me. It doesn't feel realistic, imagine if Bruce Wayne had a nanny instead of Alfred for a butler? Would you say that would be normal or that Bruce has personal issues? I'm sure we can all agree that having a butler is more cool than having a nanny. Even Lara Croft had a butler for crying out loud!Now for the discussion on one more character that is wrong for this remake? Remember how Arthur fell in love with the spunky Linda Marolla in the original? Well she's no where to be found in this remake. They had the nerve to replace her with a woman who is no where as likable as Linda: Naomi Quinn. She is a typical cliché love interest found in every average chick flick. She doesn't even try to be Linda's replacement, because of how much of an opposite she is. The romance between her and Arthur was so unreal that I would have a hard time believing any woman in real life would find the remake's Arthur to be "attractive". Arthur & Linda's relationship was better in the original because that Arthur would be able to attract women compared to the remake's example.In conclusion, this remake is disgusting and has no right to be titled Arthur at all. Cause Russell Brand made Arthur an unlovable dolt who you wish you're able to beat up in a back alley until he is bruised all over and has to eat throw a straw for one month. The director turn it into a mediocre chick flick which it isn't. If you don't understand the concept of the original then you have a box office bomb waiting to blow up. The actors weren't doing their best at all and not a single one of them looked like they were enjoying their performances. I was glad that the film receive two Razzie nominations for worst actor and remake though it would of been awesome if the film won either category. The fact the film only made 30 million at the box office is proof that the public knew it was a lost cause to begin with. I just pray that will mean there will be no remake to Arthur 2 cause I'd hate to see how they'd mess up Fairchild in a remake. If you haven't seen the original, check it out, because it worth your time as oppose to this abomination that will rot into obscurity for the greater good of mankind.