Though it has been said that Dudley Moore was about as much of an alcoholic as the character that he played in the movie Arthur (1981), he actually died from progressive supranuclear palsy, a degenerative brain disease. However his alcoholism did not help matters much. So to watch Russell Brand play the lead character in a remake of Arthur is not easy. Dudley Moore was in a number of films after Arthur, none as successful, but he did continue working until 1998.
The original Arthur was a smashing success, filmed on a budget of only 7 million dollars it brought in over 95 million. The follow up saw the studio breaking even on the film, and Dudley Moore disowned it. So the big question is, can Russell Brand play Arthur Bach? The answer is that he can, and Russell Brand actually brings a different sense of humor than Dudley Moore did in the original. The alcoholism is not as big of a deal in this film, but the true failure at the box office (the film did turn a profit, but was filmed for 40 million and only made 47) is that the movie actually goes too far in showing the world of Arthur Bach.
One good example is the idea that the original Arthur Bach would shut down Grand Central Station in order to impress a girl. In theory it sounded like a magnificent idea, but when you actually watch it on film, it isn’t that impressive at all. While I am glad that Arthur Bach was in Alcoholics Anonymous meetings trying to beat his alcoholism that does not sound like anything that Arthur Bach (who was belligerent and unapologetic about his buffoonery and alcoholism in the original) would actually do.
You get to see how the initial neighborhood in Queens occupied by Linda Marolla (Liza Minnelli) may have changed over time. None of the humor that was present when Arthur Bach visited her place in the first film was present. Instead of a manservant, Arthur Bach now has a nanny in that role. Instead of a Black chauffeur, he now has a Puerto Rican chauffeur. Things have changed a lot in 30 years.
The original had one car, the remake appears to have the same car that existed in the original (or one very similar to that car). Instead of wearing expensive pastel colored sweaters for $300 Arthur is running around town in a silk shirts that make those sweaters look cheap, and gaudy suits. The only time that Arthur actually looks like he has any fashion sense is when he tries to get a regular job and become part of the working class after Naomi Quinn dumped him when he tells her the truth about Susan Johnson.
The remake borders between political correctness (Arthur encourages Naomi to pursue her dreams as a writer of children’s books, and he visits her and tells her that he did not marry Susan 6 months after the fact at the main branch of the New York Public Library during a storytime she was performing) absurdity (a levitating magnetic bed and the fact that he is driven around in the original Batmobile from the 1989 movie) and gross buffoonery (one of the primary reasons that I watch Russell Brand). It is actually about all that you can really expect from this movie 30 years after the fact; the initial movie was great for its time but you cannot really make a movie like Arthur in this day and age. All of the actors put on a fine performance, but the movie tries too hard to upstage the original. When you consider how the original made twice as much money in a time when tickets were cheaper and the price of living was far less it is a bit sad to see Russell Brand wasting his time on this project. The original was a classic, and worth all 5 stars but this movie comes in at about 3 out of 5 in my honest opinion. The message of this film is a lot better than it is in the original, although the original was a lot better at playing up the Cinderella fantasies exhibited in such movies as Pretty Woman.
