Jamie
While this is not the final “Arthur” film of the year, it is the culmination of our year-long “Arthur” cycle. We’ve learned, loved, lived, learned to the love and live, and lived to learn and love as Patrick has navigated the data necessary to make such a cycle possible. It’s very hard trying to figure out what films have played on TV on a series of specific dates. A true technological achievement. And it tells you a lot of how far we’ve come. In the beginning we were just watching along with a podcast and mostly limited ourselves to films that we could both readily obtain from Netflix. I remember balking at paying for a rental of a BMT film. We couldn’t possibly, right? Nowadays we watch several BMT in theaters. We have ordered Bring a Friends (friends!) on VHS that we then had to convert into a watchable format! On a much brighter note we now employ our local public libraries for almost all films that we would otherwise pay for, so overall the “we would prefer not to pay for a BMT film” philosophy has blessedly persisted. But really, the true crowning BMT achievement is not our willingness to spend money for BMT… it’s the willingness of Patrick to spend many, many hours developing an advanced algorithm to analyze New York Times TV listings for BMT. It brings a tear to your eye (interpret that as you will).
To recap, Arthur is a rich, drunk asshole. But this time it’s not his fault (I pull Arthur in for a hug) It’s not your fault, Arthur. It’s not your fault. When his mother decides to cut him off unless he marries the stuck up Susan Johnson he relents because he likes his money. In the meantime he meets a free-spirited Naomi, who captures his heart with her dreams of writing a children’s book. He tries to quit drinking and get a job so he can disobey his mother, but alas, Naomi finds out he’s engaged and breaks it off. His butler Hobbes, who likes Naomi for Arthur, tries to talk to her, but ends up having to go to the hospital. When Arthur rushes to Hobbes’ side Naomi finds out from Susan that the only reason her children’s book is getting published is because Arthur bought the publishing company. That pretty much ends things for them officially. Arthur is sober while taking care of Hobbes, but when she dies he relapses. On his wedding day, though, he finds a letter from Hobbes and decides to go after Naomi once and for all. Naomi still isn’t ready to take him back, though, so Arthur spends time working on himself. He realizes that it’s not his fault (I hold him even tighter as he sobs in my arms) and he takes over his family’s charitable work. Later he meets Naomi at a book reading and they tearfully smooch… hard. THE END.
The first Arthur film was unabashedly Arthur. I went into it biased. I recalled seeing it on TV here and there growing up and I didn’t really “get it.” It was a classic and yet I never saw anything funny happen. On watching the whole thing I was surprised. The butler was definitely very funny and Arthur himself wasn’t nearly as annoying as I expected. The sequel, though, decided to wade into the hilarious waters of infertility, adoption, and alcoholism and was a barrel of anti-laughs. Where did they go wrong? They stopped being polite and started being real. So obviously the remake would resolve that issue… oh wait, no. Apparently they decided the second film had it correct and Arthur’s alcoholism and trauma should be part of the narrative. We really can’t have fun anymore with this kind of stuff. Which is fine, but it also means they probably just shouldn’t make a remake of Arthur. The film is all over the place as it tries to navigate how to get everyone into the right places where we feel good about the alcoholic asshole getting the girl. All that being said… I thought the acting and casting was pretty good for what was a not very good movie. As for Replicant, I thought this was a pretty fun movie. If you dig the cheesy badness of 90’s and 2000’s serial killer films, then just imagine that mixed with Michael Rooker, JCVD in dual roles, and it actually being about super pseudoscience mumbo jumbo. There are also two scenes involving a prostitute that has to be seen to be believed. They’re deranged. All together that’s a winning combination in my book.
Hot Take Clam Bake! Since we all decided that Arthur (2011) has to be true to life I guess I’ll just have to drop this hilarious nugget right here: Arthur and Naomi won’t make it. He’s an alcoholic, womanizing asshole. He’s a manchild that used alcohol as a crutch to deal with emotional trauma he never properly dealt with. His mom is still crazy and he’s still involved in the family business. This is not going to end well. To draw a parallel we all will understand, this is very much like Tessa and Hardin in the After series. He’s bad news, guuurl. I know you think you can fix him, but he’s just gonna end up writing a tell all book about your relationship to further his own career. Deal with it. Hot Take Temperature: Hardin Scott.
Patrick?
Patrick
‘Ello everyone! Are we talking about Arthur? Not the classic Arthur, we watched that a few months ago. We’re talking about the one who is allegedly a sexual predator. Let’s go!
Might as well get this out of the way: we chose this prior to the real deal accusations against Russell Brand. Also we set this up prior to it turning out that his alleged predation was specifically concerning his behavior on the set of this film. Amazing.
And a small note about the technological achievement that made this cycle possible. Yeah, I have 40GB of New York Times television listings on my computer. Yeah, I have spent over a year of my life algorithmically and carefully curating that data. It is my legacy. Someday when our AI overlords declare Life Credits for any human-verified Truth Data from their posts on the Elysium Space Station, I’ll be in like Flynn. Front of the gruel line. I’ll have so many Life Credits. Suck it.
Russell Brand somehow someway ends up being kind of … good (?!) in this film. He puts on an affectation that is very Original Arthur, and overall manages to be somewhat charming in a role that even at the time should have been anti-charm. Who would have thunk it.
I was shocked to see Greta Gerwig pop up, completely forgot she was in this. Pretty amusing. She is an okay actor, but apparently a much much better director. Who would have thunk it.
I don’t know why or how Helen Mirren is in this film … is it a weird Oscar play where she galaxy brained herself into thinking history was going to repeat itself with the Supporting Actor win … nah, they probably just paid her a boatload.
Garner is real weird in this film. I guess she manages to pull off being such a weirdo that despite being Jennifer Garner a person would find her utterly repulsive. Good on her.
As for our friend, Replicant (2001), the film is also quite strange. Very very reminiscent of The Watcher which came out only the year before. It feels like, perhaps, people lost their way in the wake of Seven whereby they thought that is what serial killer films now were. The Pledge and The Bone Collector both also come out in this era and both, in their own way, seem to buy into the grunginess instead of the fun of something like Silence of the Lambs in all its meticulous Hannibal Lecter glory. I don’t know. I just know that this one has JCVD mostly playing a mentally slow clone of himself, that clone falls in love with a prostitute in a wild scene, and Rooker yells at and physically abuses him all film like a lunatic. It is not a fun serial killer film, but it is a ridiculous JCVD film. So … your mileage may vary. For me it is a C+.
You know what, I’m going with a left field Product Placement (What?) for the classic Frog and Toad books, which is ridiculous. A classic Setting as a Character (Where?) for New York City. And a Worst Twist (How?) for the ultimate twist on a twist for now having him get the girl in the end (until later when he does get the girl). This movie is Bad.
Read about my sequel to the new Arthur in the Quiz. Cheerios,
The Sklogs
Bad Movie Twins 