US film critics get personal as they castigate Brand’s remake of Dudley Moore comedy
American critics have been feasting on what appear to be the bloody remains of Russell Brand’s film career following the premiere of his new movie, a remake of the 1981 comedy Arthur.
Brand is singled out for some extremely personal criticism in nearly all the reviews, being described as a “half-cocked egomaniac”, “whiny” and – worst of all for a comedian – “just not that funny”.
It’s a far cry from the warm reviews that greeted Dudley Moore 30 years ago when he played the drunken playboy Arthur who risks losing his inheritance when he falls in love with a working-class girl, played by Liza Minnelli in the original.
As one critic put it, “Even if Dudley Moore’s performance weren’t so darn funny, it would still be worth watching just for John Gielgud”.
Gielgud won a best supporting actor Oscar for his performance as Arthur’s disdainful butler Hobson.
While Greta Gerwig takes on the Minnelli role, the character of the butler has been transformed in the remake into a nanny played by Helen Mirren, who admits she didn’t care for the original film, but says she was “seduced” into taking the part by Brand.
In what must count as the hostage to fortune of the decade, she told the Toronto Sun: “I defy any male or female to spend two hours with [Brand] and not be completely charmed and not say, ‘Yeah, fine, I’ll do whatever you want.'”
Arthur lasts 1 hour and 50 minutes.
Meanwhile, the Daily Mail reported that the US reaction to Arthur is so negative that Brand’s wife, pop star Katy Perry, felt bound to fly from Glasgow to New York to be by his side.
WHAT THEY’RE SAYING ABOUT ARTHUR:
Karina Longworth, Village Voice: “The titular drunken heir has been rebuilt to suit slinky British sleaze-comedian Russell Brand, whose constant nattering rarely transcends throat-clearing improv… this remake seems to exist only to zap the original of its minor pleasures.”
Marshall Fine, Huffington Post: “If anything, this movie should put a nail in the coffin of Russell Brand’s career as a movie comic because, well, the guy’s just not that funny. Particularly not when he assays an entire role in that high, whiny, little-boy voice that he uses here. I’ve seen him do stand-up and that didn’t make me laugh. He’s really only amusing in small doses.”
Joshua Rothkopf, Time Out New York: “Brand, already a Dionysian visual joke of swirling hair and rock-star poses, is always funnier when saying less. Too bad he’s got a lot to convey here; he comes off as more of a match to his narcissistic arranged bride, Susan (Jennifer Garner), than must have been intended.”
Kirk Honeycutt, Hollywood Reporter: “Brand goes full bore in every scene, almost as if the movie isn’t so much about a drunk as an eccentric billionaire, who would be loopy if he drank only lemonade. In the end, it isn’t so much that the New Arthur isn’t the Old Arthur.
Rather it’s the anti-Arthur.”
Peter Keough, the Boston Phoenix: “I admit it: his [Brand’s] appeal escapes me. His big shovel face, Medusa coif, and high-pitched, Geico Gecko-like voice make me uneasy. Moreover, in a stovepipe hat, he looks like Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter in Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland – who also creeped me out. Brand certainly doesn’t make his already obnoxious character any more pleasant to deal with.”
Justin Chang, Variety: “This Arthur isn’t an inebriated layabout who needs help; he’s just a slightly neutered manifestation of the actor’s unruly id, and he doesn’t even seem to be all that drunk half the time. When it comes to Brand’s roles, one expects, sober or sozzled makes little difference.”
[adrotate group=”8″]
