Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Arthur (2011) **
Arthur (2011) is another example of why remakes suck. It's like a bolt of lightning if a remake is actually any good and this film has no spark in it at all. The basic story is the same as the original: rich Arthur (Russell Brand), arranged marriage with Susan (Jennifer Garner), falls in love with Linda-eh-Naomi (Greta Gerwig) Hobson (Helen Mirren) even had a sex change in this one.
The problem with this remake is that where the original shied away from using cliches, this one is chock full of cliches from the wonderful world of film. There's the sadistic future father in law meeting. There's the "I've got another woman hidden in my house." We get them all. The sad part of this film is when it tries to resurrect scenes from the original, which instead of giving nostalgia, just seem uncomfortable for the actors and the viewer watching it. Maybe it's because I watched the original a few nights before. I don't know.
There are some funny parts and it's almost an even film. It would be quite forgettable if it wasn't the remake of a good film.
(Ironically Helen Mirren and John Gielgud were in that Penthouse produced classic Caligula.)
Arthur (1981) ****
Arthur is the story of a lovable drunk. A rich lovable drunk. Lovable drunks only appear in movies because most drunks break your stuff and urinate everywhere except the toilet. Arthur (Dudley Moore) doesn't work, just spends money with his faithful butler Hobson (John Gielgud) shaking his head in disgust. Arthur has been given an ultimatum: be the groom in an arranged marriage or be cut off. Dependence on money leads Arthur to reluctantly propose, but he ends up meeting his true love Linda (Liza Minnelli), a shoplifter from Queens. What everything boils down to is will Arthur decide to be rich and miserable or poor and happy.
Arthur has a dated feel that all early '80's comedies have. It's hard to describe, it just has that vibe of life just before CD's and such. It could have easily become another one of the cliched films that cam from this era thirty years ago, but the story isn't a cliche. It's very basic and develops into something more than it would have been. Of course the combined efforts of Dudley Moore as Arthur, spouting drunken jokes as he stumbles through life and the dead pan wisecracking of Gielgud as Hobson push this film beyond standard date night celluloid. Gielgud rightly deserved the Oscar for this one.
Dated? Yes. Still entertaining? Sure. It's like a time capsule film. Sure, it's dated, but its worth digging up every couple of years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)