I’m torn on the idea of re-making films. On the one hand, if the original was such a great movie, then why not just watch that one? On the other, if a previously told story can be updated to speak to new generations, then why not? Most Hollywood films are derivative anyway – why not recycle good material instead of junk?
I debated watching the original Arthur before seeing this new version, but there would be little point. Deciding to condemn or praise the re-make for being too much or not enough like its predecessor is a job better left to film historians and purists. We should decide whether Arthur 2011 is a good movie on its own merits, and as it turns out, it is a good movie, though not great.
Arthur Bach (Russell Brand) is the sole heir to a near-billion-dollar multinational corporation run by his mother Vivienne (Geraldine James). The two are hopelessly estranged – Arthur’s father died when he was a boy, and he was left in the care of his stern nanny, Hobson (Helen Mirren). Hobson is a fiercely protective mother-figure, but she along with everyone else continues to treat Arthur as a child. He’s left to spend his days drinking, blowing the family fortune, and getting up to the kind of activity that puts him on a first name basis with every police officer in Manhattan.
He’s not only an embarrassment, he’s a liability – investors are shying away from the company because the heir can’t be trusted. But Vivienne isn’t about to let the business fall out of family control – she proposes a marriage between Arthur and ultra-capable businesswoman Susan (Jennifer Garner), who will then run the company under the Bach name. Arthur doesn’t like her, but he’ll be cut off from his money if he doesn’t wed Susan. Love (or at least freedom) may be an outdated notion to those struggling through the recession, but it isn’t to Arthur.
Right on cue, Arthur meets and falls for Naomi (Greta Gerwig), a sweet young woman who runs an illegal tour business and writes children’s stories. He’s presented with the age-old dilemma – love or money?
The performances here are mostly excellent. The actors have all played these types of roles before, but they succeed in softening them up for light romantic comedy. Brand shows us the child in Arthur, not just in his wild ways, but the wounded and frightened boy being bullied by the adults. Mirren gives us a Hobson with regal bearing, but the right amount of emotion leaking around the edges. And Gerwig finds the right balance between Naomi’s dreams and realism.
But the film drifts when it tries to get serious about Arthur’s drinking. His real problem seems to be less about alcohol than it is arrested development. Perhaps the point is that his childishness is a product of the booze, but if so, it’s lost here. Every time the story focuses specifically on the drinking, the scenes fall flat – the film seems as uncomfortable with fixing alcoholism as Arthur himself. The ending is also wrapped up a little too cleanly and quickly.
The new Arthur does little to improve on the old one, but if you’re a fan of Russell Brand or romantic comedies, it might be worth your time.
Tags: movie review
About the author: David Raitt
David Raitt is a writer and lover of pop culture. He lives in Oakville. He has also worked as an actor for The Second City, and has written, produced and performed his own sketch comedy, including the Canadian Comedy Award-nominated ALL THE RAGE. Semi-retired from performing, he still teaches improv and communications skills to students and corporate groups through his association with The Second City. Check out Dave's website at http://davidraitt.com
Follow
Subscribe