Review of Arthur (2011) by The Fat Man Q — 23 Aug 2011

Arthur can be summarized like one of those Old Spice commercials:

Look at Brand, now at NYC, now back at Brand. Don't look at Greta Gerwig, she can't act. Now back at Brand, now look at money, lots of money. Look at New York. Feel better?

I will admit I liked Russell Brand in Forgetting Sarah Marshall. The uncomfortable situations Jason Segel crafted were accentuated by Brand's cavalier rock-star attitude. It was a character not far from Brand's actual personality, but he still had a structure and dialog that were intentional. In Arthur, it's quite different. Brand plays Arthur who, from the trailers, we are to believe is a child-like idiot who is being pushed around. Right away we see that he's far from being childish or stupid, but is a raging alcoholic and womanizer. Hardly the lovable billionaire I expected. The majority of jokes and situations rely on poorly written dialog and on Brand being "wacky." I laughed about a dozen times, not exactly funny for an almost two hour movie. Green Hornet had a similar problem; Seth Rogan can be hilarious, but he still needs solid dialog that he apparently can't write for himself. I can't confirm on Arthur, but I imagine the director gave Brand a good bit of leeway with improvising.

Brand's performance and character weren't the only problems with the film. While Greta Gerwig had the looks for the perfect hipster New York girl, her acting was uncomfortably disconnected from any emotions or conviction. Contrast that with Jennifer Garner who played a perfect villain with a tons of energy. Not a Garner fan, but she definitely brings it when she needs to (see The Kingdom, one of my favorite action/crime thrillers). Helen Mirren, of course, was excellent. What can I say, she plays a great Brit.

Little bit of a spoiler ahead here.

I'm getting tired of movies that don't have the nerve to be slightly original when it comes to happiness. Just once, I'd like the girl in peril to meet a nice guy and they ride happily into the sunset to work 2 jobs, build a home and life for themselves, and retire on an adequate 401(k). The end of Arthur gave me a little hope that this movie might have an upturn. Stripped of his fortune, Arthur gets sober, appears to have a job, and goes to look for the love of his life. Sounds a bit realistic, even romantic. By this point, Gerwig's character is a successful children's book writer. Apparently her horse was not so hight to decline the publishing deal Arthur finagled for her. That right there ruins any "happy but poor" ending. As the happiness cherry on the unrealistic cake, we find out that Arthur's distant, uncaring mother's heart grew three sizes that day and she reinstated his fortune and gave him a "job" running some charity. How noble!! They ride off in a $500k car through the streets of New York *sigh, it's so wonderful* City. Are you serious? We're in the middle of terrible economic times, and nobody is feeling it harder than folks in cities with high costs of living. What an elitist slap in the face. Did I mention that this little "things set right" montage took all of 5 minutes at the end of the movie? And they wonder why they're going to barely break $10 million on opening weekend.

Acting, script, silly things like story (who needs it!?) aside, what really ired me about Arthur was having New York freakin' City crammed down my throat. Is the city in such bad condition these days, they need a publicity film to tell the country that they're still superior, happy, beautiful, and, of course, so very affordable? Spare me. Every bit of this movie is proof that Hollywood has zero connection with the movie-going audiences that wander into theaters hoping for something enjoyable and funny, but instead get this...

Arthur had a few funny moments, but the cruel selfishness of most of the characters topped by the NYC love-in made this movie a less than enjoyable experience.