Arthur still sucks
Admittedly this review of Arthur is a few weeks late, but gimme a break I don’t make it out to the theater often, and I don’t pirate movies–I know I’m lame on both accounts. I just thought I’d warn those of you who have yet to see Arthur.
I went to see Arthur on cheap night and I am certainly glad. It was an hour and a half of Russell Brand gallivanting about like the bad British stereotype that he is and flaunting his character’s mega rich and ultra idiotic disposition. This was somewhat more charming in the original, in which Dudley Moore played the main character, and perhaps Moore is part of the reason the stereotype exists at all, but playing opposite Liza Minnelli the two made the original charming but not really meaningful or memorable. Kinda like: “Poor little rich man realizes he doesn’t need his millions to be happy, but keeps them and gets the girl too.”
These two films, in comparison, are another chapter in Hollywood’s remake extravaganza that make me wonder why they bother. Although I suppose I did pay to see the film; even if it was cheap night.
Brand is an example of how the current state of pop culture is more shallow than ever and studios apparently can make money off this type of fodder. Perhaps this is why the industry is in trouble in the first place. Who wouldn’t pirate this movie? I’m beginning to think I should weigh anchor and set sail myself. I suppose I’m just tired of actors who don’t act, or rather act like themselves in all their films and suddenly you feel kinda sorry for their friends a little.
ANYWAY. Helen Mirren was great as always, but the role of the nanny of a 30-year-old billionaire seemed a little beneath her to say the least. Watch this movie is you want to know that you are poor and it’s really as shitty as it seems.