The student news site of Diablo Valley College.

The Inquirer

The student news site of Diablo Valley College.

The Inquirer

The student news site of Diablo Valley College.

The Inquirer

“Arthur” fails to recreate classic humor

Remaking movies seems to be the theme in Hollywood lately, see “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” and “True Grit,” to name a few. Recently, a remake of the 1981 film, “Arthur,” was released starring Russell Brand as the title character.

There was much anticipation leading up to its release since the original film, starring Dudley Moore and Liza Minnelli, received four Academy Awards nominations and two wins.

The original film was a story of a rich, childish, lavish-spending, drunk billionaire roaming around New York with absolutely no responsibilities.

Arthur then must choose between marrying someone he does not love and losing all his money. Ideally, he ends up getting everything he wants.

The new film is written by the Steve Gordon, who wrote and directed the original version. The story is same except for the fact that Arthur’s nanny, portrayed by Helen Mirren, is a woman instead of a man.

There was slight modern twist with things such as a magnetic bed and a Batmobile; but, essentially, it was Brand as a watered down drunken version of himself.

The British duo team of Brand and Mirren were perfect for this story. Ultimately, this well-known cast of Jennifer Gardner, Nick Nolte, Greta Gerwig, and Luiz Guzman sold out for a mediocre semi-comedic film.

Gerwig, who played the girl from Queens that Arthur falls in love with, provided some sweet and subtle comedic relief; however, her acting in general was bland and unimpressive.

Then, there was the huge let down of the well-established actors of Nolte and Gardner.

Gardner, who portrays Arthur’s fiancé, pathetically attempted to play “crazy.” Nolte, with his raspy bad-ass man voice, played the overprotective father. His performance was so average, I do not even know what to say.

The original story was brilliantly funny, and the constant muddled, drunken rambling by Dudley Moore was hilarious.

Yes, this new version of the story is cute and slightly funny, but certainly not Oscar-worthy.

Your time would be better spent watching the original movie at home then spending the money to see the less comedic version of the same story.

Leave a Comment
About the Contributor
Brittney Griffin, Staff member
Staff member, fall 2011.

Comments (0)

By commenting, you give The Inquirer permission to quote, reprint or edit your words. Comments should be brief, have a positive or constructive tone, and stay on topic. If the commenter wants to bring something to The Inquirer’s attention, it should be relevant to the DVC community. Posts can politely disagree with The Inquirer or other commenters. Comments should not use abusive, threatening, offensive or vulgar language. They should not be personal attacks or celebrations of other people’s tragedies. They should not overtly or covertly contain commercial advertising. And they should not disrupt the forum. Editors may warn commenters or delete comments that violate this policy. Repeated violations may lead to a commenter being blocked. Public comments should not be anonymous or come from obviously fictitious accounts. To privately or anonymously bring something to the editors’ attention, contact them.
All The Inquirer Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Activate Search
“Arthur” fails to recreate classic humor