I'm unsure why Russell Brand was cast in this role, yes he's English but he's not the lovable character Dudley Moore manufactured in the original film, nor could I warm to him. The moment you see Duddly Moore in the original film his energy just pulls you in and you really want him to find love and happiness. I couldn't give two hoots about sleezy Russell Brand.The original film was beautifully crafted and each character played a part that screamed 'classic', John Gielgud steals many a scene with tremendous delivery and typically 'dry' British wit that ties the whole film into such a wonderful package.Sadly the sloppy false bravado that Russell Brand throws out makes him seem arrogant and unlikeable.This 'reboot' of a truly great film should be quickly forgotten and the smile return when you put the original DVD on.

Full disclosure: I must be one of the only people in the known universe who DIDN'T like the original - so if you come to this update with an affection for its progenitor, then I can well understand you hating it, and dismissing my opinion... However, if like me you're one of the rare breed who senses potential for improvement, then you might just be well satisfied!Part of the problem with the 1981 version for me was that I couldn't shake the feeling that I was watching Dudley Moore kill himself, on screen... The character of Arthur (and indeed, maybe Dudley himself... ) seemed to drink to hide an inexhaustible sadness, and all of his hijinks were just a way for him to feel not so alone... Some of you out there may be the type of viewers who like that kind of pathos, but I just found it tragic, and it made me uncomfortable that we were being encouraged to cheer on an individual in slow decline.In this new film, Brand still drinks - but this time it feels more like an accompaniment to the silliness, than the very fuel that propels it... Arthur here is someone who refuses to grow up, but not because it appears that he's running away from anything; rather, it appears that he's just having too darn good a time... and I found that playfulness infectious.Brand, of course, can play the cheeky cad with his eyes shut, since that seems incredibly close to his real-life persona... and Gerwig is a nice foil for him as the centred yet dreamy girl who gradually makes him want to assume responsibility.Mirren uncovers yet another angle to an otherwise familiar role; stern and motherly as opposed to put-upon, like the previous Hobson... With some terrific one-liners from Peter Baynham (who has yet to write a bad comedy... ) this feels altogether lighter and sweeter than the established classic with the decidedly melancholic undertone... Maybe I'm naive and sentimental, but consciously and knowingly living in a fantasyland works for me... In truth, it's just more fun there.The only thing I genuinely do miss is the theme from Christopher Cross!

I watched the original 1981 movie and enjoyed it very much. This movie I didn't like at all. Maybe it was Russell Brand, he's too far out there for my taste. I watch comedies to laugh and forget the harshness of life's realities, this movie is worse than reality. It's too bizarre and painful to enjoy, at least in my opinion. The original Arthur with Dudley Moore was light-hearted, funny and benign. Russell Brand, in my opinion was a bad choice for this role as his personality is too weird and sinister to be funny. Yes, I am comparing this to the original, sorry but the creators in sense are attempting to sell the movie based on the original with viewers expecting something similar, I was. They should have created a totally different movie with a different title, etc... If one watches the movie they should be aware this movie is a totally different twist to the original.

For a romantic comedy, then "Arthur" is a pretty straight run of the mill. Fairly generic storyline, that is predictable to the core, as is with most movies in this genre.The comedy used in the movie is great and right to the point. Lots of hilarious moments, dialogue and situations, and as such, the movie really delivers right on.The storyline, as generic as it is, is about a rich and drunk playboy named Arthur who is to marry a corporate woman, as requested by his estranged mother. If he fails to do so, he will have his multi million dollars stripped from his good name. However, Arthur is caught between having to please his mother and marry the woman he doesn't love, or follow his heart and go to the woman whom he loves honestly and truly, and thus say good bye to his million dollar lifestyle.I will say that the people they had hired for the various jobs did good work with their given characters. But personally, it is a bit too strained by now to watch Russell Brand play yet another alcoholic rich guy, it is wearing a bit thin already. The movie was so well carried by the performance of Helen Mirren."Arthur" is a good and entertaining movie. However, if you are the least bit familiar with the romantic comedy genre, then you will not find anything new or remarkably innovating in this movie. But still, "Arthur" entertains at all the right moments.