Does the Dudley Moore classic, Arthur, carry a certain weight that makes it a property that needs to be remade for a different generation? Or could they have made another drunk wealthy Englishman film – and called it something different as to not soil what was once a very charming film?
I know all these remakes are not geared toward me – and my generation – I get that. I also get that Hollywood is a money machine – but I just don’t see that the original Arthur had the name that would put more butts in the seats. The original was released in 1981 - the audience you are catering to with the casting of Russel Brand - wasn't a twinkle in the eye when the film Arthur carried any box office weight.
I make no beefs about disliking Russel Brand – but that’s not my beef with the remake of Arthur. My beef is – that you could’ve easily made a completely different film – which the more previews I see – the remake is a completely different film – and had it stand on its own right instead of trying to drag Dudley Moore into this.
I’m actually feeling that this is a dis-service to the actors – even though I don’t believe that Russel Brand isn’t that much of an actor. Why not create your own legacy as a filmmaker – and Russel Brand his own character that wouldn’t be compared to Dudley Moore? Especially in a film like Arthur - where it's obvious that it's the character that's being remade - and not really the story.
My question is – where’s your balls Hollywood?
