Someone at Warner Brothers thought it would be a sumptuous idea to cast Russell Brand in a remake of the Dudley Moore classic from 1981, Arthur, which opens this weekend at an overpriced theater near you.
For this four-eyed viewer seasoned enough to be familiar with the original when it was original, the 2011 Arthur remake is a disappointment, particularly because I wanted so much to like it. It glaringly lacked one thing – story. Something even an attractive man in a Batman suit couldn’t fix. The pacing and laughs were uneven, even with some crafty work by Brand and the ever-wonderful Helen Mirren. All in all if you want to see it, it’s worth a trip to the drive-in or matinee at best.
Kurt Honeycutt of the Hollywood Reporter may have said it best in his review of the film. “The story hasn't changed much, nor have the characters. But the comedy is now crude instead of whimsical and its characters overblown caricatures instead of screwball personalities. A movie has been reduced to a sketch. One's enjoyment of Arthur-- and its box office chances -- may depend on a new audience having little if any knowledge of the earlier work. As a Russell Brand Show, fans and followers may enjoy his extravagant mugging and nuttiness. Those with any memory of 1981's Arthur will be severely disappointed.”
What an Arthur remake does bring up for discussion again is “new and different” versus “sequel and remake.” Which is riskier? Are moviegoers done with the same-old, same-old formulaic projects the studios are willing to produce? And where are independent films in all of this? Are they dead? Alive? Does anyone care?
So tell us what you think of Arthur (1981) and Arthur (2011). And tell us what you think of episode 1 of our series L.L.A., too! It stars Cory Gluck, Kyle Heffner and Erin Holt, among others. You can check it out on our You Tube channel for now. It will be up on our revamped webnet next week!
No comments:
Post a Comment