From what I've read it's done poorly this weekend and the people going to see it are the younger crowd; most likely fans of Brand (I'm not one btw).
People old enough to have seen the original have turned their noses up at the remake.
It came in a disappointing second to 'Hop' ($21.7MM) at ($12.3MM). The funny thing is that Russell Brand is also the voice of Hop.
With Russell Brand, Greta Gerwig, Helen Mirren. A wealthy playboy drinks himself silly until he meets the right woman. Director: Jason Winer. (1:50) PG-13: Language, sexuality. At area theaters.
There are two signs that the new "Arthur" is a badly slurring shadow of the 1981 mini-classic starring Dudley Moore.
The first is a small but notable difference on the movie poster. On the original, the "a" in "Arthur" is leaning precariously against the "r," as if recovering from a tough night out. The new logo is straight-ahead, boring, typical. The second and more crucial alteration is that this "Arthur" is missing a soul.
A genuine melancholy ran through the story the first time, which made its title character's drunken-playboy antics more than just clownishness. That grounding sadness has been replaced by a chintzy sentimentalism as clunky as its comedy.
Russell Brand is Arthur Bach, a 30-ish billionaire cavorting through New York like it's his personal playpen. His nanny, Hobson (Helen Mirren), scolds him, but boozing and partying are Arthur's reasons for being. Not even his detached mother, forcing him to marry twitchy businesswoman Susan (Jennifer Garner), can sober Arthur up.
Then he meets poor, artistic Queens resident Naomi (Greta Gerwig, in the Liza Minnelli role), and Arthur has a reason to change. But the wedding to Susan is fast approaching, and Arthur faces a real life — in other words, he'll be poor — if he doesn't marry her.
The late Steve Gordon's original script had its heart in the unconventional rhythms of screwball comedy, while director Jason Winer's new take makes the tale nothing but conventional.
Scenes of Arthur dressing up as Batman and joy-riding in a Batmobile feel like a studio in-joke, while Garner's psycho sex kitten and Gerwig's dopey bohemian are dull distillations of a million other rom-com specimens.
This showcase for Brand's lanky, steamrolling personality comes up far short of 100-proof laughs. He plays Arthur as clingy and clownish, and the British comic aims for one click above moronic. Garner, Gerwig and Luis Guzman, as a simpleton chauffeur, follow suit. (Mirren, in the haughty-caregiver role that won John Gielgud an Oscar, simply looks bored.)
When a scene of Arthur attempting to get a job falls embarrassingly flat, the movie's idea of a save is to dress him up as a giant gummy bear.
That underscores the biggest reason 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.
I saw it and dozed off a couple times if that tells you anything. Brand is decent with lots of funny one liners and his typical humor but I kept thinking of Dudley Moore being more comical. For me, the original was far better.
It's the crest on the chest not the name on the back. RIP RvP
I thought the phrase was "Phony as a $3 bill"...since $2 bills are actual legal US currency.
2011 Tesla Roadster 2.5 - Midnight Blue
2010 MINI Cooper Convertible - Chilli Red
2003 Lexus SC430 - Black with Ecru interior w/CarPC My CarPC YouTube Video - - - - - - - - - - - - - NY Times Article
the movie was weak and they had to remove the alcohol aspect from the movie. since being a drunk and rich playboy is not politically correct.
but Hollywood is fully of rebooted movies in some fail attempt at making money. i would of been less insulted if they made another Martin Lawence movie about him being a cross dressing Cop with his Son and his Son another cross dressing cop....