I rated this movie 10.
I liked it very much. It was super romantic and sweet and funny and russell brand was great in it.
shareI agree. My favorite parts were the romantic parts with Naomi.
share
MovieChat Forums > Arthur (2011) Discussion > I rated this movie 10.
for every retard who gave this rubbish 10 there are overly critical people who gave it 1 to balance it out (see the stats) the true rating should be somewhere between 4 and 5 - it was pretty bad.
shareTrue rating? I don't give a damn about anyone's opinion but my own (nor should you!) but don't go telling people what they may feel about something...
shareIts better than the average romantic comedy, so id say more like 6. either way balancing or not both sides, the 10s and 1s for rating manipulation are retards voting.
---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.
[deleted]
I liked it. It was not a very good movie, but it had its charm.
sharePretty much what I was going to say. Especially if you came with no expectations based on the perfect 1st Arthur, the 2nd was a little charming. Sometimes the theft of lines didn't fit the scene, and of course they'd have had to copy the whole wedding scene to get the best line "Do you think he wants some cheese?"
share@Ryu - you don't give a toss about anyone elses opinion, AND neither should anyone else. Etc.
Correct; Critically panned movies, and critically acclaimed movies - who cares? If you enjoy the movie yourself, then it's not for anyone else to say it's bad, good, epic, excellent, oscar worthy or a steaming pile of crap.
I've not seen it yet; I am not a fan of Russell Brand at all, but eventually it'll be on Sky/TV and there will be a night where nothing decent is on, and I'll give it a whirl: and based on that viewing, I'll make my mind up.
_______
I Suggest A New Strategy... Let The Wookie Win
It was okay, the original was 10 times better though.
I gave "Arthur" (2011) a 7/10. I thought it was a decent romantic comedy. Brand's humor takes a while to get used to but he was fine and the romance worked imo. Helen Mirren of course is good.
As for the original, I know many people who think the Dudley Moore version is one of their favorite films. Moore was a tremendous talent and he and John Gielgud have several funny moments. But I actually didn't like the original Arthur as much. Maybe it was because the excessive drinking is not addressed too much in the original.
The Russell Brand version with the AA meetings and some serious scenes about the company fits more with my kind of comedy. Another film with this kind of style was "Two Weeks Notice" with Sandra Bullock and Hugh Grant which I also liked.
BB ;-)
it's just in my opinion - imo -
I agree. I gave the film a 6/10 though, which is about the highest rating I give to romantic comedy's. It has to have something special to garner a higher rating from me, which Arthur didn't have. It was an enjoyable yet forgettable rom-com.
shareAs did I this film was splendid, I truly felt such a connection towards the characters, and to give such a poor rating just baffles me. If I hadn't seen this film with a girl I most probably would have wiped out the box of tissues when Mrs. Hobson passed. I think Russel Brand's acting was superb, he had such a playful childish attitude, great humor and exquisite delivery in his lines, and then his romantic playful side was also spectacular, and of course his dramatic moments perfectly portrayed as a person in that position, so 10/10.
Some might disagree with me completely, yet it is my opinion and I truly will always remember this movie, I haven't seen a good film in a while this truly quenched my thirst for one.
I hope anyone who wants to watch this film and isn't sure on it due to what the ratings are changes their opinion because it is amazing. (once again my opinion)
Great movie, doesn't deserve a 10 in my books but definitely deserves more than the 5.3 average rating it has right now. I'd say about a 7.
shareI rated it 9 because I don't remember to have so much fun recently watching a movie. After a movie is suposed to make people happy, right? This is the one!!! 10 is just for those movies that are so special the I can watch them 20, 30 times without get bored... Thanks, I couldn't exepect more from it!!!
shareI just saw the original and to be honest not even close to as witty or humorous now that can be due to my taste of comedy as well as not truly enjoying older humor. Yet, with that said I have to say that 2011 definitely was better in my opinion for a few reasons; Mr. johnson as his daughter, and the impeccable love interest were 10x better in the newer version, so much for life given to each character and a lot more entertaining. The grandmother truly frightened me, I am surprised munchkins were running away every time she came onto screen. Now one can not compare the main leads, also because they were both great in their rolls, only think I enjoyed more in the 2011 remake was seeing Russel Brand mature into a fine adult so to speak, in the original version Dudley Moore just watches after Hobson, and he never really tries to get a job.
All in all both were good films yet I feel the original lacked some key points that was shown in the remake.
Original 6.5/10 remake 8/10 (I would give a 10/10 but I haven't seen this more than 10 times to know if I really love it or cry every time.)
Socceryanks002, that was really, really amazingly stupid thing to say. I can't remember the last time i laughed this much. Thank you. New version of Arthur has one good thing, though. Helen Mirren. The rest is pure crap. Dudley Moore was Arthur, this guy is more like fart-hur.
share
Expressing a different opinion about a movie (a thing which is completely subjective) is not stupid.
In my opinion the original Arthur was over acted, unsympathetic and boring. I don't think the remake with brilliant but it was entertaining and I enjoyed it.
Feed me a stray cat.
Expressing a different opinion doesn't mean that it's not stupid. And... overacted? WTF?! Maybe you just missed Batman in it? Or was it magnetic bed? Or some other new farthurs gadget?
share
Again, movies are subjective and since a universal opinion cannot be made on what a good movie is then someone is entitled to think they are bad.
It's also a classic symptom when someone tries to insult the intelligence of a person who questions something they hold to be true. You are not smarter than other people.
It had nothing to do with gadgetry because despite your immature reactions to my perfectly logical sentiment I am not distracted by shiny things and loud noises.
Yes, I believe Moore's acting in this movie was entirely unconvincing. He seemed like every bad caricature of drunken behaviour and none of it seemed vaguely realistic. I found his character impossible to sympathise with and thus I couldn't be invested in his story.
Feed me a stray cat.
I'm beaten to the ground!
Ok, all that you said... you're right. I got that bashing symptom, and i'm not smarter then other people, nor i try to be. I just love to insult. I'm childish, as you imply, and my "immature" reaction comes out of respect for a man i really loved as an actor, which makes me subjective on this matter. I'm an idiot for loving original ideas and people with talent to bring original ideas to life, and i got this little problem with ruining good movies. I even had it with Indiana Jones IV, but didn't react like this because it all has more sense than farting on Arthur. But, if you find Dudley's role unconvincing and sympathize with Farthur, all that you've said doesn't mean *beep* to me. We can talk about quality of both movies, but when it comes to acting - Russell Brand is total idiot. I mean, look at him man, he wasn't even trying to play Arthur, he's playing Dudley. It's just repeating, and ruining. Helen Mirren was great, and that's all, IMO. Satisfied with "IMO"? And, if you're not distracted by shiny things and loud noises, that's great. I'm happy for you. I just hope you're not blind.
I'm done.
Some of your implied barbs need work, because they are just confusingly off the mark. I don't dislike Moore, I thought he was sharp in Micki + Maude and most of his work with Cook, however his impersonation of a drunkard felt like a poorly constructed caricature that was over the top and, as i said, unsympathetic. I preferred Brand's Arthur because he seemed ignorant, childlike and completely oblivious, that i found sympathetic. I found the female lead less brash and i found Helen's Hobson a more likeable person, whereas the original Hobson just seemed rude and arrogant. Helen Mirren played it more dry, with a hard edge but not outright rude.
Moore is not beyond reproach, while he was talented he was not flawless. Let's not forget that many people felt the original film was already ruined by the poorly conceived sequel which Moore himself starred in.
Feed me a stray cat.
I never said he was flawless, i clearly said i loved him as an actor. Sequel was pure crap, that's true, and i belong to that "many people" group. Then, why not remake "on the rocks"? That movie could be improved, and huge majority would except that, but they can't do it. This was easy, taking a good story and making total car crash out of it is not a problem, you just have to be washed up of ideas and dumb enough to say, "Hey, let's shoot some old, classic movie... again!" I'm tired of it. I can understand remaking of Superman, Batman, Flash Gordon movies, etc. We got CGI today, and it always can be better. What i can't understand is remaking this, or Footloose, or Dirty Dancing, Rocky... stuff like that. All in all, this was (as many other remakes) unnecessary spitting in the face of great actors and directors.
share
CGI doesn't mean you are going to have a good remake. George Lucas is the original Star Wars guy and even with his direct involvement the sequels are seen as poor quality and ill advised.
There are a lot of remakes i see that sound like a terrible, terrible idea. But I just don't put myself through watching them. If i enjoyed the original and I believe it will have nothing to offer then i avoid it like the plague.
Feed me a stray cat.
Hobson stole the show! Without her this movie is probably the 5/10 that most people think it is. However the same people that rate this movie a 5/10 most likely weren't moved by Hobson's story. The love she had for Arthur and the fact that she saw through to his core is what this movie is all about. Even though she is jaded by Arthur she is still able to recognize what's best for him and she fights for that. This movie probably only appeals to a certain person but all I know is I loved it!
10/10