New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

And what excellent help they give him. John Gielgud plays the role of scene-stealer, and it is no surprise that he won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his performance. Hobson's wit is delightfully British, and Gielgud nails every biting line. Hobson is very reserved, but we see through little moments how much he cares about Arthur, and his presence grounds the film during Arthur's more outrageous moments. As for Minelli as the love interest, she matches Arthur beat for beat, challenging him every step of the way. In some romantic comedies you get the sense that the two love interests are only together because the story dictates that they should be, but you really feel the attraction between these two and understand how they grow to love each other. Arthur's relationship with Hobson and Linda is elevates this film above the level of most farces.

And as for the rest of the film? Well, beyond the side-splitting dialogue delivered by these three actors, there isn't much. Every other actor seems content to let either Moore or Gielgud steal the scene, which really isn't too much of a problem. In particular Susan, the dreaded fiancée, is almost entirely defined by her blandness, which gets old fast, and seems like wasted potential. Another notable aspect of the film is the Oscar winning song “Arthur's Theme (Best That You Can Do).” The song is amiable enough, and it is interwoven into the score, which is rather lovely. Admittedly, I'm rather biased against the song, but if you had to listen to it almost every day for a year while you were waiting tables, you'd grow to hate it too. That, however, is not the song's fault, or the movie's, so I won't deduct any points against it.

By far the weakest part of the film is the ending, which wraps up with a bit of a thud. This isn't terribly surprising, as this is usually the case with films with weak plots. Arthur is forced to choose between Linda and his money, and he of course chooses Linda. But at the last minute his grandmother gives in, her bluff called, and Arthur gets everything with there being no consequences whatsoever for his actions. He and Linda presumably live happily ever after (although I'm told that there was an atrociously bad sequel released in the late '80s) and I am left feeling like the whole affair was rather anti-climactic. However, beyond the film's minor failings of weak plot and undeveloped relationships, it is an absolute delight to watch, and, while not one of the best comedies of all time, is certainly a great one.

ARTHUR (2011)

Arthur is a fairly faithful remake of the original, still set in New York with all of the same characters and the same conflict; Arthur is still a drunken bachelor forced into an engagement in order to collect an inheritance that has grown over the last 30 years to $950 million. The only major change in these basics is the character of Hobson, as Helen Mirren is establishing a reputation playing parts originally written for men. As a result, Hobson is now Arthur's nanny rather than his butler. In addition, Linda has changed professions; she is not a waitress, but rather an aspiring children's book writer who leads unauthorized tours through Grand Central Station, which is a fairly clever conceit.

Continued:       1       2       3       4