I confess. There are some films that I only watch because of everyfilmin2011. Arthur is one of them.
Having seen the trailer, I just couldn't imagine it improving on the Dudley Moore version I liked so much.
On top of that, its star is Russell Brand.
Any blog follower will know, that I just don't get the smug, middle-class jerk with the mockney Cockney accent.
However, by its end I felt about Arthur pretty much how I felt about
The Dilemma
a couple of months ago - it wasn't as bad as I feared.
The Dilemma is a good comparison, actually, because I can lump Brand into the same unfunny comedian category as Vince Vaughn.
I reckoned that The Dilemma was my favourite Vaughn performance and so too is Arthur Brand's best, in my eyes.
That is, of course, not to say that either are good films. In fact, I see no good reason to have made Arthur at all.
The first one was perfectly fine, thank you very much.
Moore was miles better than Brand as the English playboy billionaire, Liza Minelli had no match in the new movie and Helen Mirren just didn't have the arrogance, nor the comic timing of John Gielgud.
But they did make it, so it meant that, because of everyfilmin2011, it had to be seen.
And, thanks to the Royal Wedding, Friday night in Cineworld was pretty quiet, thank goodness.
So what does this new Arthur get up to?
Well, just like the old one, he drinks too much and gets into all sorts of well publicised scrapes.
His mother (a splendidly gruff Geraldine James) wants him to marry Jennifer Garner, a woman who she thinks will keep him on a tighter reign.
Arthur, though, fancies poor tour guide, with a heart of gold, Greta Gerwig.
A myriad of farcical situations ensue, many which were little more than a rehash of the original, although I did chortle three times.
The script improved as it went on and Brand did melt me a bit by the end but I was still left wondering what the point was.
Thus, there is no way I can give it more than 5/10.
|
