Here’s something weird: I really loved the Dudley Moore movie Arthur when I was a kid? Like, to the point where I also really loved the Christopher Cross theme song so much? If Zunes existed back then, that song would definitely have been on my Sony My First Zune. In retrospect, I don’t think I actually liked the movie itself as much as I just liked the idea of being REALLY rich. Wouldn’t that be fun? I still like that idea. It’s a pretty cool idea, if you think about it. Then again, if I had the choice between being rich and Russell Brand OR poor and anyone other than Russell Brand, I’d probably pick the latter. Just kidding. Russell Brand is an unbearable and also unfunny actor, but I WANT A HOT TUB IN THE SHAPE OF MY OWN FACE FILLED WITH DIET SPRITE!

Comments (60)
  1. I think I’ll stick with Generic, thanks.

  2. The worst part is he looks almost nothing like an aardvark in this version.

  3. I saw it when I was little and was upset about Hobson for moooooonths

  4. So what’s the frivolous rich dude thing we all want?
    Llama petting zoo? Llama petting zoo

  5. It’s official guys. This is the 1,000,000th movie trailer to use “Under Pressure.” I’m sure Freddy Mercury is super stoked.

  6. The high school era Russell Brand would’ve been a shoe-in for a live action film based on Arthur the aardvark.

  7. you can say what you want, it is your blog after all, but dont act like you wouldnt trade places with a guy who has his face buried in some Katy Perry action, mo fo

    • I agree with Winwood?

      • are you asking me or asking someone else? if you are asking me then you should qualify your question with, “would I, frank loyd wrong, care to bury my face in katy perry’s immaculate cleavage and have her step on my bound and gagged body while she is dressed up in pin up girl gear?” if your answer to that question is in the affirmative than you just answered your own question with some affirmative action no pun intended

  8. Would that Russell Brand were Freddy Mercury.


    Only then might I see this stinkfest.

  9. Between the moon and New York City is space, which is why that song reminds me of “Classic Space” Legos. Duh.

  10. So there’s NO relatives of Judy Garland in this version?

  11. “He’s the sole heir to a billion dollar empire. Arthur is always told what to do. Arthur’s whole life has been planned. But Arthur has plans of his own: He raped his girlfriend.”

  12. Looks like a back-story to the Upper Class Twit of the Year Competition

  13. It might be wise for Russell to hold onto that MTV Video Awards hosting gig cash for a little bit longer.

  14. “It’s like I always say, if you’re going to try to re-bottle the lightning of a classic movie, make sure you do it stupid, lazy, and for no reason.”

  15. Also, is it just me, or does Original Arthur look like an immature guy who thinks life is kind of ridiculous…


    While Retread Arthur looks like a man-brat who’s modeling a moronical rebellion on Johnny Depp’s Wonka:

    • Yes, definitely none of the charm of the original. I wonder if it’s because they chose to recast Hobson as a nanny rather than a butler, therefore infantilizing him more? Also, is Arthur a lush in the new one, too? And is there a salt-of-the-earth gal who will show Arthur that love is worth fighting for? I may have gotten carried away here..

  16. Is this a shot for shot remake of the original Arthur? Because after watching this trailer I really don’t know if I could tell the difference between this Arthur and the original Arthur.

  17. I don’t know if I’ve seen the original, because wasn’t it about horrible alcoholism?

    • Yeah, that’s about all that I remember about the original too. But there was no booze in the trailer, and isn’t Brand a recovering alcoholic? That would be like if they remade Cocoon but staring the cast of Glee in place of the old people.

  18. I want Hollywood to embrace the Dominoes Pizza philosophy of feeling embarrassed about the product they’ve been making for years. I mean, listen, I will never watch “Arthur 2011.”* But somebody else will, and that will be just one more drop in the bucket of cultural retardation that I will have to share planet earth with. Am I saying that movies like this one, or the new Sandler movie, or any movie out recently with a title like “What’s Up With That?” are to blame for low test scores and general cultural apathy and lethargy. No. But I’m not not saying that either. Hollywood keeps betting on the fact that they can make the movie equivalent of a cat chasing a laser pointer spot moving around the floor and that we will continue to be gullible enough to pay to see it, and they continue to be rewarded. What does that say for all of us? Teenagers rule the world? The ship is sinking? What does it all mean?

    * shouldn’t there be a mandate henceforth that all remakes must require the year it was released at the end of the title so as to distinguish it from the original? So the eventual remakes of “Big” and “The Goonies” and “Gremlins” will look more like “Big 2013″ and “The Goonies 2012″ etc etc? I guess Blues Bros. 2000 ruins this for everyone. Thanks for nothing, Blues Bros. 2000.

  19. Good grief. Thanks for ramming that moon and New York City song in my head. I know it’s crazy…but it’s true.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post, reply to, or rate a comment.