Brand-new "Arthur"

The remake of "Arthur" sucks:

The original Arthur isn't a perfectly constructed comedy; it lurches a bit in the romantic scenes, and shifts tone too often—but when it's funny, it's really funny.

[. . .]

 Given Hollywood's current propensity to remasticate any and all valuable entertainment properties as methodically as a cow chewing its cud, Arthur's number was bound to come up eventually. (Be warned that these 1981 hits are due for recycling: Cannonball Run, Body Heat, My Dinner With Andre.) So I'll let go my sense of personal affront and grant the Arthur remake the right to exist. The question then becomes not whether this Arthur is worthy of the original, but whether it's worth two hours of your weekend. And the answer, I fear, is no.

No, it doesn't:

The most hysterical thing about the new Arthur (as opposed to the old Arthur, the 1981 movie starring Dudley Moore) is the instant wave of hatred it has drawn from the nation's 10 million movie reviewers.

[. . .]

I must pronounce myself baffled. Walking out of the movie before I became aware of this monolithic vituperation, I thought it was a fresh and more-than-usually funny rom-com, and that the transformation of Brand from the amusingly addled rock star of Forgetting Sarah Marshall into a full-fledged romantic lead had here been completed.

I'll probably skip it. The original was uneven but with hysterical moments ("You're a hooker? Jesus, I forgot. I just thought I was doing great with you.") It was kept from being a much better movie by the casting of Liza Minelli -- a happy drunk would give up millions for her? For me, the remake is to be avoided because I can't stand Russell Brand.

(I like remakes that reimagine the originals rather than merely copying them. "Disturbia" cleverly changes the "Rear Window" protagonist from an adult with a broken leg to a teenager serving home detention, and there is a greater sense of menace from the next-door-neighbor killer.)