Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Jakoba True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

studioAT Russell Brand is a questionable character at the best of times, but here he follows in Ricky Gervais' footsteps by being another Brit given their crack at a Hollywood comedy.And it's a right mess, not a patch on the original. Brand and co try their best, but its a weak script, and Brand tries and fails to make anything out of it.The only plus points are Helen Mirren and Jennifer Garner.A dud comedy.

Taylor Kingston I have to start this review by saying, not a lot of people liked this movie, because of the fact that this is a remake of the 1981, so-called "classic". I have never actually seen the original, but I have seen the trailer, and it didn't make me want to watch it at all. Russell Brand is so funny as Arthur, a man who has had everything handed to him on a silver platter. Or to be more accurate, a gold platter encrusted with diamonds and ruby's. One day, he actually has to get a job, which is just so hilarious. This movie is quite good, in my opinion. It could have been funnier, and it they could have not killed Hobson. That kind of sucked.Overall, I give this episode a 6 out of 10.

Ranch Mubay When a remake goes bad it usually is just a water downed useless retread like Gus Van Sant's Psycho, or an honest effort that just doesn't connect such as Tim Burton's Charlie and The Chocolate Factory. Compared to Dudley Moore's Arthur, a bona-fide classic, one wonders why so little effort was put into the remake with shoddy performances, poor writing and uninspired direction. It doesn't even rise to the level of a direct-to-RedBox sequel, Arthur 3: Nephew of Arthur, if you will. And that's the big problem here, its so bad it's like a low- budget sequel along the lines of Mask 2 or Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd except those were much better films. There was one other remake like this that I can remember and that was Chris Rock's Down to Earth, a very poor reworking of Warren Beatty's Academy Award nominated film Heaven Can Wait. When it comes to comedies Hollywood can't rise to the occasion of remaking classics. The best they can do is tackle action remakes by including CGI effects that weren't available for previous versions. Which is why sci-fi remakes (Spielberg's War of the Worlds, Keanu Reeves' The Day The Earth Stood Still) that require a strong script fail despite great special effects. I'm not opposed to remakes, one is often reminded that the Wizard of Oz was a remake, but it was remade in 1939. Today, Hollywood can't rise to the occasion with scripts even when given a head start with a proved story line. All they can do is superhero films which are 90 percent CGI and 10 percent whatever you call comic book writing. Scripted comedies seem to be dead giving way to parody films and the type of lunacy by Will Farrell or Seth Rogen that if you're not drunk its not very funny. But in the case of the remake of Arthur, being drunk only reminds you of how funny the original was compared to this piece of crap.

viczye23 I have been a fan of Russel Brand for years, as a person and as an actor. I have loved every single film I've seen him in because they are great comical feel good films and this is no exception.Having not seen the original I have nothing to compare this too.Mr Brand plays a very witty, astute character who is made to grow up and become and adult. The humour in this film is first class, and some of jokes were very cleverly said, and would take someone with some degree of intelligence to understand.All in all he basically played himself, which is a great character. I would have no problem watching this film again, nor recommending it to others.