1. Rick S. says

    The original “Arthur” was bad enough (John Gielgud asking if he should wash Arthur’s dick – yuck). The last thing we need is a remake. Let’s hope we don’t have to suffer a new version of “the moon and New York City” all over the airwaves.

  2. David in Houston says

    I can’t believe that Helen Mirren would agree to remake a classic movie like Arthur. Aside from making money, what possible reason could anyone have to remake that movie? While they’re at it, they should remake Tootsie and Kramer vs Kramer too. These people are nothing but money-whores.

    @ Rick S. – You have no soul.

  3. TANK says

    Agreed, David. completely Agreed. Not only have you no soul, you have no taste, rick. Arthur, the original, was a great comedy and movie..and gieldgud’s performance can’t be duplicated, which is why they changed the gender and hired mirren (who’s a great actress, but no gielgud)…and it’s not going to work.

    It’s bad enough that they made a sequel which was unwatchable…but they have to further degrade it with a remake.

  4. says

    Whether you liked it or not (I’m somewhere in the middle), there’s no reason to make a remake. Are they going to “reboot” it in hopes of a franchise?

    Is Hollywood so incapable of new ideas?

    I know it’s not a dearth of ideas so much as the speed a pitch meeting takes. Saying, “It’s a remake of ‘Arthur’ starring Russell Brand, only with Helen Mirren in the John Gielgud role” is a lot faster than explaining the plot of a brand new movie. But even so, really, Hollywood, I’m ashamed of you.

  5. gypsy78 says

    Arthur is one of my all-rime favorite movies. Liza, Dudley and above all Gielgud were wonderful in it. It was also made in the early 1980s when a movie about a spoiled billionaire wasn’t nearly as out of step with the general mood of society. It will flop, and shame on Dame Mirren for being a part of it.