By fortycal
Written March 25, 2011
I do not have to see this movie to know just how bad it will be. After watching the preview, it was obvious Russell Brand tries too hard to be funny. It is very easy to see Russell Brad was the wrong choice to recreate the role made famous by Dudley Moore. The idiot who came up with the, "bright idea" to make a remake of Arthur, could have at least cast Johnny Depp for the role of Arthur. Another blunder in this complete waste of film was casting Helen Mirren as Hobson, a role mastered by John Gielgud. Hollywood Just does not get it.
38 out of 225 found this helpful. Did you?

Was worth every penny however...

By RandytheMovieFan
Written April 05, 2011
...I went to a free sneak peek. Decent remake, but as with the original 1981 version, it's a tough sell to feel sorry or even interested in a very wealthy, spoiled, perpetually drunk wastrel. Russell Brand isn't as cuddly as Dudley Moore but does OK. Greta Gerwig is a big improvement over Liza Minelli as the inspirational working-class girl, and Helen Mirren is just as wonderful as John Gielgud was in the role that won him a Best Supporting Oscar. The rest of the cast is fine, especially Nick Nolte, who injects a jarringly psychotic edge to one scene. Rated PG-13 but fairly tame. Not worth the price of a big-screen ticket, but a safe rental for a rainy day.
34 out of 51 found this helpful. Did you?

not helpful

By smw2420
Written April 09, 2011
I don't think it's in the spirit of a review to get opinions from people who have not seen the movie. Please keep reviews to those who actually go and see a film. I don't care what your thoughts are of an original movie that I saw years ago.
30 out of 60 found this helpful. Did you?

Funny as hell

By Darkstardom
Written April 10, 2011
Go or the flying monkeys of doom shall throw **** at you. lol
13 out of 26 found this helpful. Did you?

Review title (optional)

By obessedwithmovies
Written June 09, 2013
Review body (optional)
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Did you?