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

That being said, the ending of this new Arthur is vastly superior to the original's, because it understands the main flaws of its protagonist. Arthur's alcoholism and his childishness are tied to each other, and in order to deal with one he has to deal with the other. At the end of the original, Moore's Arthur is still a childish drunk, just one who is willing to give up money for love (although he doesn't have to). Brand's Arthur actually tackles his issues at the end of the new film; we see him in AA, and learn that he is running the charitable arm of his mother's business. It is not until he has sobered up, and grown up, that he attempts to win Linda back, which makes for a much more satisfying ending.

Shockingly, the biggest disappointment in the remake is Linda, played by indie darling Greta Gerwig in her first Hollywood role (and one of the only reasons I actually wanted to see this movie). In 1981, Linda was sassy and called Arthur on his shit, but she is rewritten as a gentler, more innocent love interest. Gerwig's sweet insecurity works very well in her various mumblecore roles, as well as in Greenberg, but here she is just blown off the screen by Brand. She fails to capitalize on the comedic bones thrown to her, never nailing her quips, and even her more sentimental moments fall flat. When she tells Arthur that she used to think that the moon followed her, she shrugs it off awkwardly; when Liza Minelli said the same thing 30 years before she had conviction behind it, and you knew she could handle Arthur's craziness. As big a fan as I am of Gerwig, she wasn't right for the part, and every moment she is on screen slows the pace of the film, which is a death kiss for a comedy like Arthur.

Writer Peter Baynham and director Jason Winer clearly have a lot of love for their source material, as there are several references to Steve Gordon's original film that I probably would have missed had I not seen it only a few weeks before. And as far as the level of comedy, they do a very good job of matching the original in a few scenes, although some others don't come close, most notably Arthur's first meeting with Susan's father (has any prop been used better than that moose head that Moore chats with?). Ironically, the main flaws of both films are the opposite sides of the same issue, which leads to a catch-22 of sorts: 1981's Arthur felt shallow, while 2011's dragged through its plot and character development. Could there ever be a happy middle ground? Maybe we'll find out in 30 years. In the meantime, it is safe to say that while the new Arthur is not the classic that the original was, it at least did not embarrass itself, and it is certainly fun. After all, isn't fun the best thing to have?

Continued:       1       2       3       4