themuddoctor

24 May 2012

Arthur is annoying

Russell Brand irritates the hell out of me. There's no getting aroundthat. Some people find him hilarious while others, myself included, seehim as a desperate, ingratiating bottom feeder, who will not only stoopvery low to get cheap laughs, but seems to enjoy getting them that waymore than really earning them. This remake of the Oscar-winning 1981comedy, Arthur, starring Dudley Moore and Sir John Gielgud, is atonally confused mess that wants to make us laugh, failing, and thenwants to make us cry, failing miserably. Brand plays Arthur, the rich,spoiled man-child alcoholic who, who lives in a lavish New Yorkapartment with his loyal but stern nanny, Hobson (Helen Mirren). Readmy full review at: http://themuddoctor.blogspot.com/2011/09/arthur.html

Bruce722

23 May 2012

Surprisingly good.

I absolutely despise Russell Brand so naturally I assumed that I wouldnot like this movie one bit. That, however, was not at all the case.Sure, the movie started with Brand's typical ridiculous antics andobnoxiousness but it turned out to be quite entertaining. Brand, foronce, was able to actually make the transition from ridiculous idiot tostill idiotic but also charming with his humor. Also, Helen Mirrenstole the movie. She is truly something else. I don't think I'd bealone in saying she is one of the premier actresses in Hollywood. Hercharacter's dry humor but strength and caring shined through perfectlyand was the highlight of the film. Garner and Gerwig's characters arealso pretty interesting. Garner doesn't really step outside the boxwith this performance but it was still solid. I was pleasantlysurprised with Gerwig though. I had never seen her in a meaningful roleand she was very solid in portraying her emotions. All in all the moviewas just a pretty good film and it was definitely worth watching.

DarkVulcan29

23 May 2012

Russell Brand is no Dudley Moore, but he was still good.

He manages not copy the performance that late great Dudley Moore, butRussell Brand brings his own to the role, as the lovable childessmillionaire. Brand is a enjoyable to watch. I liked this a littlebetter then then last years Get Him To The Greek(2010). And I thoughthe could'nt play out of his goofiness, but he proved me wrong here.Helen Mirren is also as Hobson(this time a nanny, taking over for JohnGielguds butler). I hope she will be nominated, she was quite a scenestealer.Jennifer Garner was good, so was Greta Gerwig. And Nick Nolte ismemorable as Garners crazy father. This film was entertaining, but nota masterpiece, It's just a movie that you'll enjoy from time to timelike the original 1981 version. So if you are into what new stuff theyput in this version, then check this out.

nancy45

22 May 2012

A real disappointment

I love the Dudley Moore version of this movie, and from the previews, Iwas doubtful, but I go to at least one movie a week, so I decided tosee this one. It was about what I expected - no comparison to theoriginal. I got the impression that Russell Brand had seen the originaland was trying to play Dudley Moore, but not really succeeding. Havinga nanny instead of a butler did not work. Jennifer Garner did OK asSusan, but Greta Gerwig in the Liza Minnelli role was just pathetic.There was no chemistry and nothing about the character that would makeus believe Arthur would give up his fortune for her. One of my favoritescenes in the 1981 version was the engagement party and the stablescene, and that was completely left out of this movie. I feel thatscene was pivotal to the plot. Most notably, no one in the theaterlaughed. I first noticed that I was not laughing, then noticed that noone was. Perhaps remaking the film wasn't the worst idea ever, but ifit had to be done, more thought should have been put into the idea. Youmight enjoy the movie if you have not seen the original, but if youhave, you will be disappointed.

bopdog

20 May 2012

More real than the original. Brand and Gerwig are great! (As are Mirren, a good guy, and Garner, a villain)

I must confess to being one of the curmudgeons who found the original"Arthur" really bad. Drunkenness has never been funny to me.Loutishness, narcissism and a life without vision or purpose has alsobeen nothing to tolerate, let alone boast about, in my world. When Iheard that this new incarnation of the old Dudley Moore movie wasmarkedly unlike the original, that actually prompted me to give it ago. Plus, I have always found Russell Brand's loopy self-absorptionkind of funny (he loves his mum!).This new version was much better cast than the original. John Gielgudsimply had too much gravitas and dignity to have really tolerated thatDudley Moore Arthur. He wouldn't have stayed more than a few days, thenhe would have booked out of there. And whatever good qualities LizaMinnelli may have possessed, sexual appeal, charm, and romanticpotential were totally not among them from my perspective.This time Helen Mirren as the Gielgud character lets on that she toomay have a few dark corners of her libidinous make-up, and that shefound the arrangement of a loving and care-giving relationship withArthur somewhat satisfying, and at least safe. Her reasons, of course,she wisely keeps to herself, the audience is left to make up their ownplausible back-story.And this time the "approved" betrothal object, played by the marvelousJennifer Garner, is not hideous (Jennifer Garner is constitutionallyincapable of playing hideous) so much as cold, heartless, driven, andon her own mission. With that character one is repulsed, but one alsohas a momentary flirtation with the idea of "Heck- why not?"Garner's dad, aptly played by Nick Nolte, was a vulgar thug, venal andcoarse. Greta Gerwig as the real love interest of Arthur is simply adorable. Ihave never seen her before, but found her absolutely perfect. She issweet without being cloying, attractive without catering to somecranked-out version of media hotness "a la mode." She seemed genuine,deep, innocent, and completely the kind of person anyone, especiallyArthur, would love to spend time with for the intrinsic delight of hercompany and her vibe. Gerwig deftly showed us her character's heartwithout any effort or melodrama.Lastly- this movie wisely decided NOT to try to re-do the old storypoint-by-point. The old story simply wasn't worthy then, and God knowsit wouldn't be now. No departures are radical, in case you did somehowfondly recall Moore and Co's 1981 effort. But it was re-thought in arelevant and meaningful way that makes it a better story. All in all, then, this "Arthur" is more believable than the stinky anddreary original. The premise of both is so outlandish as to be almoststupid, but watching these great actors take us through the stages ofthe story was a joy.

ahmed-947-221051

19 May 2012

310

By AhmedAlKiremli.com Movie Story A drunken playboy can't take care ofhis life or control it, just know how to waste the money of his familyfall in love with a women that's not accepted by his family and forthat reason the family will stop giving him money.Ahmed Al Kiremli Opinion About The Story The story is not that bad butthe director, actors, script made it so bad.About The Director The director involved so many unnecessary scenes tomake the movie more silly, the selecting of actors specially the mainactor Russell Brand was a disaster, the script wasn't helping that muchbut the main actor made it worse.About The Actors Russell Brand very silly and his accent is annoying,artificial and not believable. Helen Mirren was acting well but I don'tknow how she's accepting to act in such a movie, and Jennifer Garnerwas OK and some scenes the acting looked artificial.About The Script Very bad.About The Sound Mixing Nothing difficult.About The Cinematography Simple nice picture.About Movie Soundtrack & Music Nothing interesting.Ahmed Al Kiremli Rating 3/10 Is It In Ahmed Al Kiremli's Must WatchList? No Is It In Ahmed Al Kiremli's Great Movies List? No

19 May 2012

So bad at points that you can feel your IQ dropping

I am, by no means, a film snob. I can enjoy silly and dumb humor as much as the next person. I laugh at the antics of the Three Stooges, the silliness of Brett Reid in Green Hornet, and the humor in most comedy shows and movies. Of course, there necessarily must be some element of the humorous if a film is to be comedy. Alas for Arthur, the makers of this dud ignored that simple golden rule of comedy, instead opting to produce a film heavy on the idiotic and light on the amusing. In fact, this film was so stupid at points that you practically could feel your IQ dropping, and you were affronted -- not at the film makers, but at yourself, for, while this was without question a hideously misguided effort on their parts, the affront to your intellect that came with watching this monstrosity was yours and yours alone. I shall, therefore, not speculate on the implications of the fact that I soldiered on through this quagmire of inanity, banality, and utter stupidity, all the way to its ridiculous conclusion. I will only say that the film ended in the same vein as it began -- a bloated, repugnant heap of self indulgent, humorless waste. Much like the character it attempted to portray in an amusing light, this film was one that was born to a foolish beginning, squandered any potential it had in bouts of self aggrandizement, and ultimately suffered an inglorious end. At least, that is what I kept hoping would befall the unlovable pseudo-rogue who pranced, simpered, skipped and whimpered his way through the story.The actual plot -- a rich, spoiled man who, at his mother's dictates, must choose between love and wealth -- was not enough to make or break the film. The script, the veritable humor vacuum that overwhelmed considerable stretches, and the tragically misguided attempts at eliciting laughs, combined with the utter predictability of the conclusion, however, hastened to drown, bury, and say last rites over whatever potential this story might have had.1/5 stars for a film suffocated by excesses of idiocy and deprivation of humor

kendan-948-998364

18 May 2012

Enjoyable, marked with some sterling and poignant performances

I suspect that Russell Brand is a polarising personality in this world.Some find his idiosyncratic ways quite the put off. I, on the otherhand, have always had a soft spot for old Rusty. I find him beguilingand very pleasant to watch.I am not going to pontificate and deconstruct. This is a remake. Ican't remember the Dudley Moore version but all I know is that thisfilm was very charming. Fair enough, there are going to be no bigsurprises - no epiphanic moments. But what this has in bucket loads isa grand sense of heart. Russell Brand is silly but underneath the silliness there is real,genuine stuff. You can see his heart break in a crescendo scene and ifyou let yourself you'll find you become very sympathetic to this lostboy. Jennifer Garner is scarily comfortable in the role of a-gradebeyatch! Helen Mirren is just perfect as the man boy's nanny. Look, tobe honest I am too lazy to get into nitty gritty stuff but this one isa winner if you are open enough to admit it.Trust me. It's lovely.

Pumpkin_Man

17 May 2012

Better Than the Original!!!

I'm sorry to say that I liked the remake a little better than theclassic 1981 version. This movie made me care more about thecharacters, and had more of an emotional storyline concerning one ofthe characters. Russell Brand was awesome and hilarious as Arthur Bach,a drunken millionaire who is being forced to marry against his will.Arthur is so lovable and very childish and is taken care of by hissweet but strict nanny, Hobson.Because his mother is tired of his wreckless ways, Arthur is forced tomarry Susan. He ends up meeting Naomi, and falls in love with her, butif he doesn't marry Susan, he will be cut off from all the money. Ihighly recommend ARTHUR!!!

mgarland

17 May 2012

Arthur was a surprisingly good movie -- thoroughly enjoyed it.

I had no preconceived notions about this movie, other than I likeRussel Brand as an actor, absolutely love Helen Mirren in anythingshe's done, and like Jennifer Garner for the most part.This movie surprised me. I loved the original, although I haven't seenit in several years, but saw it back in about 1987 or so and loved itthen too. This "remake" is more of a reworking, I think. Russel Brandadds his own style and class to it, and it's that much better for it. Iimmediately felt connected with his character, Helen Mirren's character(Hobson) as the stuffy English nanny who is gruff on the outside butloves Arthur deeply on the inside even if she doesn't always show it.Greta Gerwig, who plays Arthur's love interest, is absolutely charmingin a quirky, goofy, sweet kind of way, and I absolutely adored her inthis role. The chemistry between her and Arthur is believable andinteresting to watch. Loved every minute of it.Jennifer Garner is one of those actresses that I really like in someroles, and don't really care for in others. She's not really supposedto be likable in this movie, but I found myself strangely attracted toher. I think she pulled off the psychotic-power/money hungrybitch-demon from hell role quite well, actually, and thought she andher character added a much-needed dimension to the movie. As for NickNolte's character (her father), I could have done without him. I likeNick, but thought this role was unneeded and a little disturbing, and Ifelt like it would have been a better movie without him. Sorry, Nick.Overall, the comedy in this movie works wonders. I laughed at most ofthe jokes, and I was thoroughly entertained by the three maincharacters' interactions and their blossoming relationships. Everyminute was believable and enjoyable. I even liked the chauffeur'scharacter, played by Luis Guzman, and like him in pretty mucheverything he does. He's just funny and entertaining to watch onscreen.Overall, I highly recommend this movie. I was surprisingly mesmerizedby the whole thing, and I will definitely watch it again, probablyseveral times. It's really, really sad at one point, and I can'tremember the last time I cried watching a movie. I just don't do that,and this one has a particularly poignant and touching scene that leftme watery-eyed.Just a good, funny, entertaining movie all around with lovablecharacters and good story. I don't require much else from my movies, soI give it 9 out of 10 stars and loved it. Thanks for reading, and Ihope you enjoy the movie as well.

tamiteixeira

17 May 2012

worst idea ever

Making a remake of a comedy classic is a horrible idea. Than when youconsider the horrible acting and casting, makes it an all around badidea. The original was absolutely fantastic it is funny without beingstupid and intelligent, all that can be said about this one is STUPID.Dudley Moore was absolutely wonderful in the original and this guy issoo bad i don't even care what his name is. the chemistry between theoriginal cast was also better. I would highly recommend everyoneavoiding this movie and going for the original. you would have to payme to go to watch this one. Please do yourself a favour and just watchthe original and if you have any taste in movies at all you willunderstand in an instant that the original Arthur is in a class byitself.

Miky Spiky

17 May 2012

A Worth Watching Movie!

by a worth watching movie i'm really being unfair to this title and iwill tell you whybefore i watch movies i always like to check the great database we havehere called IMDb.com its helpful sometimes. :)so after i checked and found out it was a Remake and it have lowRatings I've felt bad and i decided to put low hopes into it and watch5-10 minutes and then decide whether to continue or look for anotherone.and the 5-10 minutes turn to be 25 minutes of joy and laughter, yesthat's what the movie makes me feel " and at that moment I've decidedto make a review to encourage people to watch it and this was my firstreview. but not until i finish the movie no i couldn't stop watchingand write a review because i knew it's going to be a LONG review!now talking about the acting i will start with Arthur "Russell Brand"which blows my mind with his amazing acting skills and his funny lineshe kept saying the whole movie. one line i liked from Russel Brand was:when Hobson searching in the purse of Tiffany she found Arthur watch inthere Tiffany said Arthur oh. look i don't know how that got in there,i don't know Arthur. Arthur replays: its probably one of thosemysteries that will never be discovered! JFK, who nicked my watch..also i have to say Tifffany "Christina Calph" was great in this veryshort part.now about Hobson "Helen Mirren" well she is a wonderful women and greatactress and made this movie as wonderful as she is with her funny/smartlines and stable- high acting skills..one of the Hobson (Helen Mirren) lines was to Evander and Arthur afterpunching Arthur she says: Burt Johnson 3:00. "Evander, if he's not outof this ring in one minute, i'll bite your other ear off. LOL isEvander Holyfield in this movie so Hobson can tell him this? well ifyes this part totally worth playing and FYI "Evander Holyfield is whomike Tyson bit his ear" did u know that? well i didn't know and itsgood to know :)and i will end this review with the beautiful Naomi Quinn "GretaGerwig" who wore the part Perfectly.as the rest of the cast thank you for being in this movie you made itbeautiful and a worth watching :)to the readers thanks for you're time and i hope this review washelpful for you. watch the movie and enjoy :)

unowho-24-96831

15 May 2012

Big Disappointment

I was very disappointed with this remake. I didn't find it funny atall, and actually caught myself nodding off a few times. My husbandslept through most of this movie. If you have seen the original Arthurwith Dudley Moore, you wont be happy seeing this remake. I found thestory line hard to follow, and very confusing at times. Why the writerschanged the Hobson character to a woman, and left out the grandmother(she was an important part of the original film) didn't make sense tome. Russell Brand was not very convincing playing the part of a drunk.Dudley Moore was brilliant in that part. The supporting cast wasn'tmuch help to this film either. I found this movie a yawner for sure. Iwas so hoping it to be funny, and it wasn't.

aaron esmonde

14 May 2012

Surprisingly likable reworking

A drunken playboy stands to lose a wealthy inheritance unless hemarries a woman he doesn't like, meanwhile he falls for tour guide thathis family doesn't approve of.Entertaining comedy in which Russell Brand surprisingly comes acrossmore lovable that Dudley Moores original incarnation. There are somegenuine funny scenes notably with a magnetic bed, children's store, theBatmobile getting pulled over (yes, really) and when Arthur goes nailgun happy with future father-in-law Burt Johnson perfectly played byNick Nolte.The realistic sets, New York setting including Grand Central Stationact as interesting backdrop that director Jason Winer full utilises.Greta Gerwig as the love interest Naomi Quinn is on likable form whileJennifer Garner refreshingly goes against all American girl typecast associalite Susan Johnson. Evander Holyfield, Luis Guzmán and GeraldineJames Geraldine James put in an appearances. Helen Mirren's Hobson istouchingly portrayed and Mirren steals the show with her grounded andhumanistic performance.Overall the story stinks of countless 80's rom-coms but Arthur isentertaining nonetheless due to its nostalgic yet contemporaryreworking and Russels' engaging tongue-tied performance.

martin-richard-1

14 May 2012

Why oh why?

I was so looking forward to this film. But sad to say there are noredeeming features in this pathetic film. Why Helen Mirren loweredherself to play in such an awful film I will never understand. RussellBrand as Arthur plays a poor drunk, and Gretra Gerwig playing Naomi hasno personality to talk of. Why I wasted my time watching the whole filmI don't know. It was patently clear within 10 minutes how bad it wasgoing to be. Remakes of classics are always dangerous. This shows noneof the charm or wit of the original. Even as a film taken by itselfwithout the original to compare it is rubbish. What a shame thatRussell Brands quirky humour was not allowed to come into play.

Jackson Booth-Millard

14 May 2012

Arthur

I saw a few clips and I wasn't sure if a remake of the DudleyMoore/Liza Minnelli film was a good idea, I was tempted by the leadactor starring in the title role and the swayed again by the criticsrating, but I did see it. Basically Arthur Bach (Russell Brand) is thespoilt rich drunken playboy, son and heir to a big family business runby his mother Vivienne (Geraldine James), who he calls by her firstname, and all his is spends pots of cash on alcohol, partying, rentingmovie vehicles, unneeded ornaments and much more besides. He is told byhis mother that he will only become the new chairman of her corporationBach Worldwide and ultimately keep his fortune, including the $950million inheritance, if he marries to arranged wife, shrewd assistantSusan (Jennifer Garner), who will take stable control. Arthur agrees todo this as he and Susan did have a history together once, and he getspermission from her father Burt Johnson (Nick Nolte), and the next dayhis opinion on the whole thing changes. He meets the beautiful illegaltour guide Naomi (Greta Gerwig) who takes an interest in him because ofhis rebellious nature, and while the wedding is being arranged hesneaks out for secret dates with her. Arthur's female butler and nannyLillian Hobson (Dame Helen Mirren) doesn't normally like his taste inwomen, mostly prostitutes, but as she gets to know Naomi she grows tolike her, with her ambition to get a children's story about the Statueof Liberty and other New York landmarks published. He has made his newlover interest happy with his high spending ventures, includingemptying Grand Central Station for their first date, but Arthur wantsto see if he can live like a normal man with a paid job, but thisdoesn't go well. After trying to sway Susan and one or two otherattempts to stop marrying, without any success, he decides to tellNaomi the truth that he is engaged, of course she is upset and wantshim to leave her alone. Arthur then has his driver Bitterman (LuisGuzmán) replacing Hobson who is in bed for a bad headache, but in factshe is suffering from an illness that is slowly killing her, and whenshe goes to hospital he does get Naomi to come and visit. When theylook like they are going to make up, Susan arrives to rub her face inthe engagement, and reveal that her recent publication of herchildren's book was in fact helped out by Arthur buying the publisherthat did it, and she leaves. A few days later Hobson tragically diesand Arthur starts drinking again to numb the pain and loss, andeventually it comes to the day of the wedding, where he is not sober,and he gets a final letter from Hobson. From beyond the grave she tellshim that he should follow his heart and do whatever it takes to getNaomi back, so he objects to his own wedding saying that he does notlove Susan and that it is all a setup, and he tells Vivienne he isprepared to give up his fortune. Six months later, after she refusedhis offer to get back together, Arthur goes to buy a copy of Naomi'sbook, and he finds out she is reading it in the library, and in frontof the children they eventually kiss and make up, and in the end,Arthur does still have his fortune. Brand gives a really goodperformance with well scripted wordy and drunken dialogue, Gerwig isnice despite not being as interesting as Minnelli, Mirren gets hermoments although she isn't quite as credible as the Oscar winningperformance Sir John Gielgud gave, and the supporting cast, especiallyGarner, are okay. The film is a nice simple story with most of thelaughs not just coming from the lead character, but what puts a smileon your face is the fortune spelling ventures, including borrowing theBatmobile and The Delorean, and other good jokes besides, so it's notsuch a bad remake comedy. Worth watching!

Richard

12 May 2012

Not a total disaster, but not anything to run out and see either.

The latest 80's remake comes to us in the form of "Arthur". RussellBrand is set loose in his first full-on starring vehicle. With oleRussell, you either like him or not. He works best in sparingly and hisfirst lead film will test your tolerance of his shtick.There a several changes in the story, but the overall plot remains thesame; rich, spoiled and lacking any kind of direction man is given anultimatum; marry a woman hand-picked or loose said fortune.I will give the creators credit in that they updated the film to playdirectly to a modern audience. It doesn't follow the exact sameblueprint as the 1981 film, it plays mostly to Brand's strengths andthat does go a long way in enjoying the film.Helen Mirren takes the place of Sir John as Hobson, now, a life-longnanny rather than servant. She is good, as expected. Louis Guzman isfunny as Brand's chauffeur Bitterman. He and Brand make a fun physicalcouple given their very distinct height and body type differences.Jennifer Garner is equal parts gorgeous and scary as Arthur's betrothedSusan. Nick Noelte pretty much plays a hyped of characterization of hisusual tough-guy persona as Susan's dad. Finally there is Greta Gerwigas Naomi, the object of Arthur's affection. There are times that Gretais absolutely perfect, then times she falls flat. Not sure if it wasjust how she was playing Naomi or what, but I found her at times to bevery amateur in her delivery. Not anything that torpedoes the movie,but I don't know, just something didn't quit click there all the timewith her performance.The dialog in the film is pretty good, I would say even on par orbetter than the original. Again, much of it plays to Brand's style andif you like him, you will love the banter he engages.The one place that this film does fall short on compared to theoriginal is the score and soundtrack music. There is really nodefinable theme to the score, they do throw pieces of the original's inhere and there, but nothing discernible or as memorably as the originalmovie's score. As for the soundtrack, definitely nothing to compare tothe title theme of the original, in fact, I can't even remember thesongs that did play. This is lite stuff, nothing to rush out and see, perhaps a matinée atbest and then just expect to have a little fun. If you are on thefence, stay there and wait for it to make it on disk and give it arental.

sekao7

12 May 2012

Give This Remake A Chance - Well Done Brand

I am a huge fan of the original Arthur and the genius of Dudley Moore,make no mistake. As such, I went into this film with low-expectationsas I would with any remake.To my surprise, I thoroughly enjoyed this film. I found it charming,witty, and its New York backdrop quite lovely. Let's face it, RussellBrand was going to be bashed from the get go for taking on such abeloved role, but he really did a wonderful job. The magic of theoriginal Arthur was Dudley's performance and wit, as well as therelationship between Arthur and Hobson. Both Brand's performance andthe relationship between Arthur and Hobson (Helen Mirren) are in tacthere. I found myself emotional during several scenes between Brand andMirren. When is Helen Mirren not fantastic, btw? As far as thesupporting cast, Greta Gerwig really sparkles in her understated twiston the original Liza Minnelli role. She is the breakout star here.Great chemistry between Gerwig and Brand too.This isn't for everyone, and it will never replace the original by anymeans. But, do yourself a favor and give it a chance!

fruitsoffamily

12 May 2012

hilarious

Looking for a funny bit to enjoy with some friends, I was very pleasedwith the outstanding one-liners and Russell Brand's silly antics. I waspleasantly surprised with the sweet romantic plot and deeper underlyingplot. Not having seen the original, I had no expectations and I reallyloved the laugh. I think the motherly relationship between Arthur andHobson added to the complexity of the situation between Arthur and hismother, as did the parallel between the death of Arthur's father andNaomi's mom. The depth of Naomi's character also added to the growth ofArthur's character and promoted an emotional connection. Surprisinglysweet, Arthur (2011) is a secretly lovely romance with the addedseriousness of alcoholism and the complexity of deep lovingrelationships.

DarthRaen

11 May 2012

Enjoy the movie for what it is rather than comparing to the original

People go to the movies for a variety of reasons. Watching Arthur forit's contributions to the world of cinema is probably not the reason tospend your $10.If you want a light comedy which entertains you, thenI'd say the film definitely succeeds. But, if you take things seriouslyand attempt to critique the movie,well it might be better if you rentsomething from the Venice Film Festival instead. Arthur is made with aview to entertaining it's viewers and does a pretty good job of it,IMHO(but hey, a packed theatre of people laughing would not meananything,right?) What would average movie goers know about the movies?Russel Brand doesn't attempt to copy Dudley Moore's role- he presents arather brattish rework to take into today's age and times.Helen Mirrenis delightful-every 30 yr old would love to have her as a nanny:) Youfind yourself rooting for Arthur turning himself around to end up withthis girl he loves Naomi(Greta Gerwig)