Arthur

It would help a lot if you could like Russell Brand. If you hate the lead character, the very guy you're supposed to be rooting for, then what the fuck do you have left?

If you get caught between the moon and New York City--or even just between two movies at the multiplex--the best that you can do is skip this one.

Everyone involved in the creative process of this film should have to walk by Dudley Moore's tombstone and apologize.

I don't think I laughed once. Very bad acting from Russell Brand and Jennifer Garner, the story is not touching, or exciting or anything at all really. I was really disappointed!

Character written to be perfect for Russell Brand, who I actually tolerate compared to most people, and they still couldn't make a good movie.

Do I have to score this? Okay. All points for Mirren.

Not even Helen Mirren could save this mess.

Stock format, runs out of inspiration well before the dual women conundrum is established. Garner is least sexy when she is trying be so & that hipster 2nd choice character smacks of marketing feedback & tumblr farming.

Arthur? Maybe the original is better, but this is probably the worst work I have seen from Russell Brand.

Passable with a few good moments. Not enough good moments to make it a good film, however.

the comedy wasn't good. what I focused on was this man who was ultimately a destroyer of his own life. does a pretty damn good job of relating emotion and the trying times hes going through. only problem is that the rest of the movie tries too hard to make an otherwise depressing story into a comedy. but i guess without the stupid bits, the sad parts wouldn't mean as much. haven't seen original.

Not bad remake.

I haven't seen the original and I have a man crush on Russell Brand, so I expected to love this, especially considering Brand plays a rich version of himself, and I kind of did until it descended into formulaic romcom territory. It did regain my attention when the movie fools you into thinking the reformed good guy won't get the girl after all, but of course it pussies out of that. The movie cars were great though.

so hard to rank against the original - which i loved - good try but the emotion is stripped away and politically correctly forced into A.A. - unfortunately

It's enjoyable in some respects just because of how sweet it ends up becoming. I can't say it's overly successful, as it fails as both a comedy and in most regards as a drama, but there are some intangibles that it brings which help it stay kind of fun. It's too long, it's not funny enough, and it's completely unnecessary considering it's basically the same film as the 1981 version, but it can be enjoyed if you're in the right frame of mind.

Honestly, I thought this would be another fart-joke/fluff-piece. And it was no Shakespeare but it was a charming comedy romance.

Inoffensive but unfunny, substituting generic wackiness for humor (and featuring, I shit you not, a scene where Arthur is on two dates at once), until the ending makes it actively offensive by (spoilers) having Arthur win back his girl with a generic "But I love you!" speech despite all his fuckups and then having him retain the fortune the entire movie was about letting go of simply to get a happy ending with absolutely no nuance. I do find Greta Gerwig's presence quite likable, though.

The idea that a millionaire heir-apparent would ever find love in New York City is preposterous...unless it's a love of money.

The problem with this film vs. the original is that in 2011, there is nothing original or charming about a rich, immature buffoon who relishes living off unearned wealth. We see them on TV all the time. They are easy to despise. Also, the new Arthur has less of an alcohol problem & more of a reckless childishness problem. Plus, the Garner/Nolte characters are just too ridiculous.

It's a decent remake, but overall pretty uncalled for, and doesn't really bring anything new to the table.

Unfunny comedy. Helen Mirren was about the only thing not terrible.

Makes Arthur 2: On the Rocks look like Citizen Kane. What an annoying twit Russell Brand is. And I don't think I can ever forgive Helen Mirren for accepting a role in this shit burger.

Russell Brand is perfect in the lead role. This movie has some very funny moments. The supporting cast is excellent, so many funny supporting roles. The ending is predictable but works for this movie.

Stupid and lame, didn't laugh at all.

"If this version fails, it's at least partially because it's been sent on the cinematic equivalent of a suicide mission." - Jesse Cataldo

Overly long, but definitely has its moments to make up for its length. Decent acting, witty jokes and a solid message. Quite alright, chap!

Alright, so, Russell and his British-ness pretty much win me over every time, and I love Helen Mirren. I'm usually not a big fan of the "joke-joke-joke-joke" style of comedy, the one-after-another constant quips, but for the most part, I didn't get tired of it here. It's got genuine heart in it amongst the one-liners, I totally lost it at the Darth Vader stuff, and, y'know... it's just a genuinely nice and funny film. It's not to the level of other 2011 comedies, but it's more than worth seeing.

Not as bad as I thought it was going to be, but Gerwig and Brand have almost zero on-screen chemistry, and the scenes involving the two seem to flop every time the former opens her mouth. Also, the arc for Jennifer Garner's character was more like a steep incline leading to a cliff.

No.

I haven't seen the original, but I really loved this movie. it's got all the cliche's you could think of, but it ends up being charming anyway. I'm also a big fan of what Brand has been doing recently and hope to see more in the future.

It's passable entertainment. There are some funny lines and the actors are good/funny. I haven't seen the original though but as far as I can tell the only downsides of this movie are its bad timing of release during the current recession and that the story itself is way too much by the numbers.

Not really a bad remake of the great 80s film, but dispiritingly bland and uninteresting. Mirren has a few good lines (most copied directly from Gielgud), and Brand is as good a replacement for Moore as anyone would be, but "modernisations" detract (Arthur's alcoholism) and film doesn't seem to know what to do with its fine supporting cast (Nolte turns up briefly and disappears all too soon). The Garner character as written also doesn't seem plausible. Not as bad as it could have been.

kept me smiling the whole time

somewhat amuzing but its still very sad to see Helen Mirren and Jennifer Garner in superficial characters like this...

I don't think this is anywhere near as bad as it's made out to be. I find Brand very funny when he's funny, and he's funny often enough here to make it an enjoyable enough timewaster.

From a producer's point of view I can see why it would work great on paper: Get an up and coming comedic - and clearly talented - supporting actor to break through to the broader masses with the easiest trick in the book: A pseudo-modern remake. But no, to cast Helen Mirren in John Gielgud's classic role isn't sufficient to save this mess from utter disgrace and pointlessness, and no, the crazy- and goofyness of Russell Brand is not even near interesting enough to pull off a feature (yet).

First of all, Greta won me over. Consider me a fan. Cute and charming as hell. Besides that, this is actually a pretty solid movie. I really didn't wanna see it, but I was bored today and it was there so I watched it. At first I was thinking, "This will be a 30 on Criticker" but then as the movie went on, I bought into it. At first the jokes didn't work, it was too many, too often. As the movie went on, the jokes got funnier... I started to chuckle, and then eventually laugh out loud.

The movie is much better than what I expected. It is mildly funny and is not the regular Russell Brand that one expects, a raunchy comedy that one can expect from him. It can be a likeable movie. It went quite downhill towards the end with all the drama.

There really is no middle ground with Russell Brand; either you like him or you don't. I happen to be on the positive side, as I enjoy his quick witted British banter. But the main reason I gave this a pass is for Greta.....mmmmmm........Gerwig. She had more charm than a bracelet in this film.

Some extremely funny moments, but it's been done and the acting was horrible. Your average love story. I loved "the betting scene" and "the darth vader scene" :)

Russel Brand will never be able to carry the weight of a leading role... He's fun, but only in small doses. A bit like marihuana. But Arthur still has Helen Mirren and Nick Nolte. Any movie that has that deserves a couple of points...

Another Hollywood A picture in which everybody in the cast is good except the star. This kind of picture desperately needs a star with a tenth of the wit and charm of Dudley Moore. Russell Brand has less than that. The players with talent struggle mightily to paper over the massive hole in the center of this movie. They lose. On top of that, this movie is just... well... as moronic as its title character. You're not supposed to find the "villains" more sympathetic than the "heroes"

Why why why why why?

I'd follow Russell Brand anywhere because I think he's a genius, and as much as I think Jennifer Garner is overrated, both in appearance and talent, she was fun here, playing way against type. Although, in the end, Arther got his money back, which somewhat defeats the entire message of the movie.

I love Russell Brand and this one was cute, if not quite what I'd expected.

The quick-witted, prickly Brand's a vast improvement over Dudley Moore, and Greta Gerwig's amazingly cute, but overall, this is more mildly amusing than outright funny. Seems like it isn't sure whether it wants to take the family-friendly route or a raunchier, Brand-off-the-leash approach, so it ends up pretty watered down and sort of pointless. Plus it goes on forever. I still prefer it to the dull-ass original, though.

very funny 10 out of 10

This film struggles to keep up the laughs, and never achieves its goal of making us feel bad for the ultra-rich protagonist, whose problems are entirely created by his own behavior. In the end, he requires the most minuscule change of character and zero true compromise.