Arthur 2011

David Germain, Associated Press: Despite Mirren's estimable presence, the new Arthur has little of its own to offer. It's the same story, told with much less heart. Read more

Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle: The problems of "Arthur" are mostly ones of scale. The set pieces are too big, and the movie becomes too labored. Read more

Eric D. Snider, Film.com: With a handful of solid laughs and a modicum of snappy dialogue, it's liable to amuse, if not overwhelm, an audience seeking casual, forgettable entertainment. Read more

Glenn Kenny, MSN Movies: Brand definitely carries the first hour with his free-associative riffing and childlike energy... Read more

A.O. Scott, New York Times: Never have I needed a drink so badly. Read more

Joshua Rothkopf, Time Out: Even Dudley Moore realized-all too late-that a second Arthur was a bad idea. So why have Christopher Cross's words not been heeded? (Once in your life you find her...) Read more

David Edelstein, New York Magazine/Vulture: Russell Brand gives a career-killing performance. Read more

John Anderson, Wall Street Journal: The very idea of this movie suffers from a form of myopia that simply can't be overcome. And, of course, all would be forgiven, if only the thing were funny. Read more

Claudia Puig, USA Today: A little Russell Brand goes a long way. Read more

Moira MacDonald, Seattle Times: It's pretty faithful to the original, which is to say that there's not much there other than a wispy and frequently drunken fairy tale. Read more

Keith Phipps, AV Club: Brand can be funny in supporting parts. But he doesn't yet know how to command a front-and-center role, and Arthur groans with the effort from its first moments... Read more

Bill Goodykoontz, Arizona Republic: It seems like an odd choice for a remake 30 years down the line, as Moore's portrayal is one of his best, and best-known, roles. But if you must, Brand is the man for the job. Read more

Wesley Morris, Boston Globe: Throughout, Brand's Arthur looks ready for photo shoots, with his clear complexion, tailored suits, and neatly tended tresses. Moore often looked like his face was going to slide off his head. Read more

J. R. Jones, Chicago Reader: [Brand's] snotty, improvised quips are good for a few laughs, though three decades of skyrocketing income inequality have soured the comedy of Arthur's astronomically expensive self-indulgences. Read more

Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune: Blobby and a bit of a mess but offers a fair number of laughs... Read more

Peter Rainer, Christian Science Monitor: I don't buy the notion that this is all a lavish fantasy to cheer us in troubled times. It's too clueless and condescending for that. Read more

Tom Maurstad, Dallas Morning News: There are so many reasons to dislike Arthur that it's hard to pick just one. Read more

Tom Long, Detroit News: Arthur may not be much of a movie but Russell Brand is one heck of an Arthur. Read more

Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly: I really started to wonder: Why are we sitting and watching this dithering, half-cocked egomaniac? Read more

Kirk Honeycutt, Hollywood Reporter: The story hasn't changed much, nor have the characters. But the comedy is now crude instead of whimsical and its characters overblown caricatures instead of screwball personalities. A movie has been reduced to a sketch. Read more

Betsy Sharkey, Los Angeles Times: Paper and possibilities do not a movie make. I'm guessing even Christopher Cross is cross. Read more

Colin Covert, Minneapolis Star Tribune: If you must see Arthur, choose a theater that serves alcohol. You'll need it. Read more

David Denby, New Yorker: A pitiable remake of the sloshed "classic" from 1981. Read more

Stephen Whitty, Newark Star-Ledger: It's a sardonic screenplay filled with juvenile characters, and the whole thing doesn't mesh. Read more

Scott Tobias, NPR: Of the myriad things the new remake of Arthur gets wrong, missing Arthur's sadness may be the most damaging. Read more

Joe Neumaier, New York Daily News: This "Arthur" is missing a soul. Read more

Kyle Smith, New York Post: Attempting to fill Dudley Moore's top hat in "Arthur," Russell Brand rapidly descends the rungs of the comedy ladder from "unfunny" to "irritating" to "vulgar" to the bottom one - "Andy Dick." Read more

David Hiltbrand, Philadelphia Inquirer: The last part of Arthur slogs under an unfortunate burden of sentiment and sincerity. Read more

James Berardinelli, ReelViews: It's amazing how a lifeless, pointless remake can provoke pangs of nostalgia about a mediocre movie. Such is the case with Arthur. Read more

Richard Roeper, Richard Roeper.com: It would be impossible to top the original "Arthur" but this modern version is a consistently funny and sweet if not overly inspired remake. Read more

Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times: Russell Brand takes on a thankless task and earns at least some thanks. Read more

Peter Travers, Rolling Stone: The limp-d--- remake of 1981's Arthur - starring Russell Brand in the happy-drunk role indelibly created by Dudley Moore - sounds promising, but it ends in disaster. Read more

Andrew O'Hehir, Salon.com: "Arthur" might be the year's first summer movie, in the sense that if you're stuck in the house on a rainy day with a large group that extends from tweens to grandparents, you could definitely do worse. Read more

Dana Stevens, Slate: If you get caught between the moon and New York City -- or even just between two movies at the multiplex -- the best that you can do is skip this one. Read more

Joe Williams, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: The original "Arthur" was harmless. The new one is charmless. Read more

Rick Groen, Globe and Mail: Apparently, somebody thought it was time for a remake. Clearly, somebody was dead wrong. Read more

Trevor Johnston, Time Out: A blander, more responsible 'Arthur' with far fewer laughs and, be warned, a painful update on the classic Burt Bacharach title tune over the end credits. Read more

Justin Chang, Variety: [An] innocuous, blandly therapeutic remake of a comedy that wasn't exactly edgy to begin with. Read more

Karina Longworth, Village Voice: This remake seems to exist only to zap the original of its minor pleasures. Read more

Michael O'Sullivan, Washington Post: Was the lovable lush ever funny? I mean, honestly? Read more