Reviewed by: Melissa Green
Romance Comedy Remake
1 hr. 50 min.
Year of Release:
April 8, 2011 (wide—3,200+ theaters)
DVD: July 15, 2011
drunkenness in the Bible
marriage in the Bible
Is formalized marriage becoming obsolete? Answer
“Meet the world’s only loveable billionaire. No work. All play.”
Russell Brand is the main actor in this movie. I have found the majority his other movies offensive and not morally appropriate for Christians. So when I went to see this film, I was already on guard.
This is a remake of the 1981 movie “Arthur” starring Dudley Moore, where the character is a rich young man who goes around town wasting money, has out of control behavior and is almost constantly drunk. In this 2011 version, Russell Brand is forced to change his behavior and stop his antics by his mother, or he will lose all of his money.
The language between Brand and most people he comes in contact with in this movie is generally vulgar and obscene. The sexual content is, also, heavy and made me very uncomfortable.
The acting is weak, and that is the least of the worries. I did not bring my children to this movie. I was surprised that there were younger children in the audience. If I had not been obligated to write this review, I would have walked out of this movie. The moral content is beyond offensive.
As God’s Word says, Matthew 5:28, “But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
Based on moral content alone, “Arthur” is definitely not a film worth seeing.
Violence: Minor / Profanity: Extreme / Sex/Nudity: Extreme
See list of Relevant Issues—questions-and-answers.
…It would be conventional to describe “Arthur” as a vehicle for the talents of Russell Brand, who plays the boozy billionaire of the title, but that would be to get it backward. Mr. Brand, with his stringy hair, stretched-out body and nutty British demeanor, is more like the beast of burden, charged with hauling this grim load of mediocrity to the box office.…
…Add Arthur to the List of Needless Remakes… The biggest problem with “Arthur” isn’t even the acting, lackluster script or the total waste of decent talent like Mirren, Garner and Gerwig… It’s that it never needed remaking in the first place.…
…when man is accidentally hit by nail gun, the title character jokes, “Nails made a hero out of Jesus so you could go with that”…
The remake of “Arthur” may not drive you to drink, but it may send you hunting for the 1981 original to see why audiences loved it so much.… the movie is too long and lurches toward its conclusion, never consistently crackles with comic lines and wants to have it both ways by pandering for laughs with fisticuffs and a dubious disrobing and yet being politically correct.…
…fails… Overlong, overcast and a lot more politically correct than it lets on, this “Arthur” is on the rocks long before Last Call.
…“Arthur” staggers to stay on its feet… the movie falls so flat that, the compelling, human and funny scenes between Brand and Mirren make those other scenes feel even more flat by comparison.
…Conversation includes references to Arthur having sex with people he can’t remember the next morning, venereal diseases, nude sunbathing, throwing up or urinating on a sexual partner, visiting gay bars in Copenhagen and purposing marriage to “validate unwanted pregnancy.”…
…This “Arthur” is not as laugh-out-loud funny as the earlier one, its scene of a dinner in a staid hotel dining room isn’t as successful, and it doesn’t have as much fun with the father of the Naomi character. But the dialogue is well-written—witty and quick and not clunky.…
…Russell Brand’s take on Dudley Moore classic is just a rough hangover… the movie fails: Aside from a handful of amusing riffs, the movie is about a joke machine who (literally) runs down the street in his underwear, not a flawed person running from himself. It’s hard to tell when this Arthur is drunk and when he’s not, because he is, always, as phony and as funny as a two-dollar bill.