Arthur (2011)

While watching the Warner Brothers remake of their 30-year-old hit comedy Arthur, I was reminded of when I went through the Warner Studios tour a few years ago and was surprised at how much of their facilities are recycled for different productions. For instance, our tour guide rattled off at least ten different movies that had all used the same “New York” street on the backlot.

So there’s a moment in this new version of Arthur when ultra-rich playboy Arthur Bach (Russell Brand) has his collection of movie vehicles displayed before him–including the Batmobile, the General Lee from The Dukes of Hazzard, and the Scooby-Doo Mystery Machine van–and I realized that these are the same vehicles that were on display for us on the backlot tour. That’s an efficient, fiscally responsible decision by the studio, but it highlights the fact that this movie is not a fresh remake, but a rather mundane recycling of old material.

For those of you under 30 (whom the studio is counting on to see this thing) and those who haven’t been nostalgic for Christopher Cross-fueled romantic comedy since 1982 or so, here’s a brief refresher course: Arthur is filthy rich, constantly drunk, and spoiled rotten. His only close companions are his chauffeur Bitterman (Luis Guzman) and his snarky lifelong nanny, Hobson (Helen Mirren, gender-switching the butler role that won John Gielgud an Oscar for the original film). Arthur’s icy mother Vivienne (Geraldine James), tired of his wild, drunken antics impacting the family’s corporate empire, issues him an ultimatum: marry Susan (Jennifer Garner), the heir-apparent daughter of a wealthy developer (Nick Nolte), or be cut off from the Bach family fortune.

But, of course, right after being hit with the looming prospect of a loveless corporate-merger marriage, Arthur meets Naomi (Greta Gerwig), a sweet young lady trying to provide for herself and her father by working as an unauthorized tour guide at Grand Central Station, and if this review was in an audio format I would insert a record scratch right here because HUH??? She’s doing WHAT to make a living? This clumsy writer’s construction is merely a pretext for the inevitable over-extravagant date to impress both the poor girl and the audience. Yada yada yada, love conquers all, no surprise.

Well okay, I was a little surprised–by Russell Brand, primarily. Up until now, I cannot say that I’ve been a fan of his; but despite my dread at the freeze-frame image at the beginning of the credits showing Brand halfway into a Batman suit with his shaggy black mop of hair like a witch’s fright wig, he started to charm me as the movie progressed. Vocally, Brand sounds nearly identical to the late Dudley Moore, who received his only Oscar nomination for playing this charming drunk. Brand similarly slurs his drunken speech, which may lead some to surmise that he’s just imitating Moore; however, Brand does get a couple of nice moments to show a little emotional depth, and his comic timing and line delivery are sharply attuned for the role. I’d like to see him explore some more substantial material sometime, preferably without the hairstyle that makes him look like a roadie for The Cure.

As in the original version, the heart and soul of Arthur lies in the relationship and badinage between Arthur and his acid-tongued servant Hobson, and casting Helen Mirren in the latter role is a spot-on choice. She’s approaching 50 years of film and television performances, and her star power continues to dazzle, even in last year’s action caper Red. She’s the perfectly staunch foil to Russell Brand’s excesses, and just as Gielgud was the best thing about the original version, so is Mirren this time, even when the script gets a little too maudlin.

One other switcheroo besides Hobson’s gender involves the two potential brides of Arthur. Susan, the rich man’s daughter unmemorably portrayed by Jill Eikenberry in the original, is much more forcefully represented this time by Jennifer Garner, who seems to dominate all her scenes with confidence.

On the other hand, in the original, Arthur’s poor but true love was played by Liza Minnelli, and even if it took some suspension of disbelief to buy Liza as a commoner, she was as cute and funny to watch as Dudley Moore was. However, Greta Gerwig, as the new Arthur’s love interest, is a boring, miscast drip, and nowhere near funny or charming enough to be interesting or believable. Her only standout feature seems to be that she’s one of the very few blondes in New York City. Miss Gerwig, whom I’d only seen before in a minor role in the terrible retro-horror flick The House of the Devil, stands out like a weak, sore thumb alongside the other three lead actors. The same can be said for Geraldine James, who does little beyond sneer in the underdeveloped role of Arthur’s mother.

Overall, I can’t blame Warner Brothers for attempting to cash in with this rehash. They’re merely riding the heat of two prominent British stars. But apart from rewriting the dialogue, plus the inclusion of AA and instant off-screen rehab because now it’s more socially incorrect to laugh at drunks, this movie doesn’t present anything new unless you’re a big fan of those two stars. Even the obligatory remake of “Arthur’s Theme (The Best You Can Do)” in the closing credits, performed by the new and normally hot band Fitz and The Tantrums, is rather tepid and forgettable.

Sorry, Warner Brothers, some may appreciate your efforts, but there’s too much recycled content in your latest Arthur product. How about giving us something new for a change?