Cannes Film Festival 2013

Review: Russell Brand and Greta Gerwig make the most of uneven 'Arthur' remake

Major missteps hobble some good work

<p>Greta Gerwig and Russell Brand both come off well in the underwhelming remake of 'Arthur'</p>

Greta Gerwig and Russell Brand both come off well in the underwhelming remake of 'Arthur'

Credit: Warner Bros.

The original "Arthur" was a modest little comedy that ended up with a major invite to the Oscars and a big pile of money.  It was a critical and commercial hit, and the dialogue of the movie entered the pop culture vernacular that year.  The theme song from the film by Christopher Cross was omnipresent on the radio, and between this film and "10" a few years earlier, Dudley Moore was having a full-blown movie star moment.  The film was the kind of hit that rarely happens these days, a slow-burn word-of-mouth case of a little movie that audiences just plain devoured.  That was part of its charm.

The new "Arthur" is a much more elaborate affair, and as conceived, it is a calculated attempt at using a beloved-but-old-enough-to-be-forgotten title to force a movie star moment with someone who has been tapped for said stardom.  In this case, Russell Brand is the guy who everyone has been trying to figure out since he made his studio debut with "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," and right now, he's having about as clear a shot at it as he's ever going to get.  He had a big weekend last week with his family comedy live-action/animation hybrid "Hop," and now this week, he's the lovable drunk who has to choose between a loveless marriage as a wealthy man or the girl of his dreams and a life of poverty.

And before we go any further, yes… he's a drunk.  He drinks non-stop in the film.  He is as constantly sloshed as Dudley Moore was.  It's been conspicuously absent from all of the advertising for the movie, but literally within the first five or ten shots of the film, we've seen bottles and flasks being slipped into a utility belt.  From the marketing materials, I thought the angle this time was less about him being a raging alcoholic and more the man-child thing.  It turns out to be both, which makes sense.  

The new version, credited to Peter Baynham with the story credit going to Steve Gordon who wrote and directed the original, plays Arthur as an overgrown baby, pampered by his nanny Hobson, played by Helen Mirren.  He drinks because he doesn't have any reason not to drink.  He drinks because it gives him permission to be even more of an infant.  He takes nothing seriously, and he flaunts it in the face of his mogul mother Vivienne Bach (Geraldine James), who is worried about the future of the company that she controls.  

One of her most important executives is Susan Johnson (Jennifer Garner), who briefly dated Arthur at one point.  Susan is portrayed as a hungry, nakedly calculating woman with designs on the Bach empire.  She wants Arthur because she knows the value of a merger.  She is, by far, the villain of the piece in this new take on things, and Garner seems happy to play her without a single redeeming characteristic.  And her father, who is even more threatening in this new version than he was in the original, is played by Nick Nolte with his freak turned up to 11.  His first appearance in the film was the single biggest laugh for me.

Oddly, both Helen Mirren and Luis Guzman, who plays Bitterman, the chauffeur, feel like they're leashed in the whole movie.  They never really engage, and with Mirren in particular, that's a disappointment.  It sounded like a perfect fit, playing the gender switch with her in the Gielgud role, particularly opposite a walking libido like Russell Brand, but the chemistry never really pays off.  Guzman's just plain underwritten, underused.  It's not enough just to have him onscreen… he needed to be given more to do.  They try to milk the Arthur/Hobson relationship for the same sort of emotional wallop that the 1981 version had, but it feels artificial.

I'm unfamiliar with Jason Winer's work.  I haven't watched "Modern Family," which seems to be his big credit so far, but I know a lot of people love that show.  I think the film's problems are as fundamental as a lurching, uneven sense of tone.  The places where it comes alive are due in large part to Greta Gerwig, who plays Naomi, a gorgeous, charming girl who stumbles into Arthur's life at the exact moment he's got to buckle down and make the choice he doesn't want to make.  She represents everything that his mother hates, and she's one of those impossible movie girls, eccentric and sexy and innately saintly, and Gerwig is just plain appealing enough to make it work.  And when it's just Arthur trying to woo Naomi, it's sweet and silly and enjoyable.

Is that enough?  Is a sporadically charming riff on such a familiar property enough to give Russell Brand and Greta Gerwig the bumps that it feels like the industry wants for them?  They've both been tapped, but they haven't really had an organic moment where something they were in went from hit to phenomenon.  And it feels like Hollywood wants to give them that moment.  But this sort of innocuous remake, amiable and ultimately sort of dull, probably isn't how it's going to happen.  Dudley Moore had a real moment with the original, and this is just a karaoke version.  Brand and Gerwig deserve something better than this, something more uniquely suited to their undeniable appeal.

"Arthur" opens everywhere this Friday.

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    DanielF23

    I'm so head over heels in love with Greta Gerwig. She is the only reason I will see this movie.

    April 6, 2011 at 6:05AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Craig Ranapia

    "Oddly, both Helen Mirren and Luis Guzman, who plays Bitterman, the chauffeur, feel like they're leashed in the whole movie. They never really engage, and with Mirren in particular, that's a disappointment."

    Which is a shame, because the only think I remember warmly about the original was John Gielguld obviously having a wonderful time (and collected an Oscar) turning passive-aggressive hostility into a fine art. He even dropped a mild obscenity, which -- for someone used to seeing him playing the quintessential perfectly proper English gentleman in role after role -- was as deliciously naughty as seeing your grandmother in a micro-mini.

    April 6, 2011 at 6:40AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    What's more ridiculous?

    That a movie reviewer is obviously unfamiliar with the term 'Manic Pixie Dream Girl,' or that he would find one charming?

    April 6, 2011 at 9:23AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      pretto Isn't Russell Brand's character the manic pixie in this scenario?

      April 6, 2011 at 3:11PM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew Oh, I'm sorry, am I legally required to use some other reviewer's pet phrase now?

      Pardon me if I don't fall into the Goosestepping Geek Brigade and only use the properly sanctioned meme for things.

      April 6, 2011 at 4:48PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Fastbak

    "What's more ridiculous? That a movie reviewer is obviously unfamiliar with the term 'Manic Pixie Dream Girl,' or that he would find one charming?"

    Hey I'm familiar with the term(coined by The Onion's AV Club) and I'm always charmed by them.

    I had seen the original "Arthur" on video a few years ago and was surprised how much I liked it. Not just for Gielgud's Oscar winning performance but for Liza Minelli who I only know now as the aging mess she is now. She's actually very appealing and down to earth in the movie and you root for her and Dudley Moore to get together. A huge part of the first one's success is the Christopher Cross song. I can't help liking it. It's so perfectly early 80s adult contemporary. Do you know that it's HUGE in Japan? Christopher Cross is like Elvis over there!

    April 6, 2011 at 10:29AM EST Reply to Comment


  • It always amazes me how studio heads think certain actors are stars when they aren't. Casting Brand as Arthur is a perfect example of this. Remaking Arthur is a terrible idea but if you're going to do it cast somebody like Hugh Laurie in the role.

    April 6, 2011 at 10:57AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    camphenn

    I can't imagine why I would see this film. The original was a true original. The only movie I ever paid to see four times in the theater. It was simply just that funny. I realize that we re-make good movies for the same reason we re-make Jane Eyre every 10 years. Each generation needs to have it's own version of our stories, our "myths," if you will.

    But I don't think I can come to this party. I was surprised when I saw that they were remaking this, not so much because the first movie was so good (which it was), but because the way our society views drinking has changed radically. Whereas once drinking and being drunk was a common sight in pop culture, in today's world such people are viewed as having deep-seated problems, as alcoholics, and rarely viewed as simply being funny. Your review doesn't lead to me to believe, however, that the more modern view (and dislike) of drunken behavior is taken into account in this version. Not sure if that's a good sign for future portrayals of drunkards, or a sign that this movie will tank partially because the producers have totally ignored the current climate regarding said behavior.

    As to the original, one of the things that was so special about it was how every person who arrived on screen was completely there, regardless of how many lines they had. It was very reminiscent of a Preston Sturges movie in that regard. I can still remember Moore and Minelli on a date of sorts at some kind of arcade (in the back part of a Nathan's I think) and while they're talking a man just appears in frame right behind them. He never says a word, but he becomes a fully formed character and third wheel almost instantaneously. It's silly, odd and yet somehow real and endearing in the creation of the scene as a whole. It's a wonderful comic moment that almost all movies today would never even bother to try. And most probably couldn't pull off anyway. The original Arthur was a special movie.

    April 6, 2011 at 12:11PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Fastbak It's a shame the guy who wrote and directed the original, Steve Gordon died from a heart attack just a year after it's release. It's the same loss with Diane Thomas, who died in a car crash a year after she wrote ROMANCING THE STONE. It makes you think of all the great movies both could have made.

      April 6, 2011 at 5:18PM EST

Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook
Top Stories From Around the Web