Arthur (1981)

Awesome Movie

A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

A film about a merry rich drunkard living a consequence-free lifestyle in the Big City may not seem promising entertainment, yet after 20 minutes "Arthur" makes you wish they just left it at that.Instead, you get a long, dreary tale in two parts, one a tragedy of a friendship cut short by death, the other a rom-com between the title character and a perky shoplifter who doesn't mind Arthur's alcoholic foibles given the nine-figure nest egg involved.It all boils down to money. "I wish I had a dime for every dime I have" is how Arthur puts it.As played by Dudley Moore, Arthur alternates between an annoyingly sad drunk and an annoying happy one. Supposedly Moore based his performance on his former comedy partner Peter Cook, a comedy genius who wound up a drunken sot and his own best audience. The first thing we hear in the movie is that braying laugh, which sounds like something which must have drove Moore crazy in a prior life. Now his pain becomes ours.Why was "Arthur" such a big hit? The theme song topped the Billboard pop chart, it took home two Oscars, and there was even a sequel and a remake. God may not love a drunk, but someone apparently did.One Oscar went to John Gielgud as Arthur's butler, Hobson, a font of bitter witticisms. "Usually one must go to a bowling alley to meet a woman of your stature," he tells the new woman in Arthur's life, Linda, played by Liza Minnelli. Yet we are asked to accept Hobson as the voice of human warmth otherwise missing in Arthur's life, mainly by virtue of his getting the big lines.We are supposed to believe Arthur will give up anything and everything to be with Linda. You would think she might be someone who might have something real to pull Arthur from his chemically-induced fog. Instead, Minnelli plays her character way too much like a celebrity cameo, all exaggerated eyeblinks and cutesy asides.Writer-director Steve Gordon seems to have had some darker subtexts he wanted to work in. For example, Arthur expresses a fondness for Soviet communism, and there's a strong sense of evil from the capitalist plutocrats who run Arthur's world. But the most Gordon gins up this way is a contrived situation where Arthur is being pressured to marry a woman whose father is set up as some kind of homicidal tycoon with a criminal reputation. Why would Arthur's ultra-wealthy, hyper-snooty family promote such a union for their fragile son?I guess it's for the same reason Hobson has that chronic cough. We need a story to go with the punchlines. I just wish the punchlines had been better. I enjoy Moore in other roles, and he's a solid-enough improvisational actor that he makes some of Arthur's lighter scenes work here, when he doesn't overplay the tipsiness as he too often does. The main takeaway I got was of him punching well below his weight, and somehow coming up short anyway.People defending "Arthur" say you had to be there. Take it from me, I was there. It wasn't any funnier then than it is today.

Arthur Bach (Dudley Moore) is a care-free drunken millionaire playboy who has no issues in frittering his life and wealth away on prostitutes and alcohol. However, his parents threaten to cut off his $750 million inheritance if he doesn't marry the equally wealthy Susan (Jill Eikenberry). Arthur is initially prepared to go ahead with the marriage (if only to get his inheritance), but complications ensue when he falls in love with everyday waitress Linda Marolla (Liza Minnell).I think one of the pivotal factors riding on how much you'll enjoy this film is whether you take to Dudley Moore's character and the problem for me is that for the most part I couldn't; although I'm prepared to concede that Moore was excellent whether he was playing the drunken fool or whether he was playing it straight. The problem I had is that the writers didn't give him the best material to work with; a lot of his drunken ramblings weren't funny and to be honest I found him to be annoying rather than funny when he was drunk - his constant laughing every time he told a joke felt like an obvious prompt to get the audience to laugh at material that clearly wasn't funny. As mentioned, I don't blame Moore for this and I honestly think he was absolutely superb, but his character was annoying a lot of the time.The real star of the show was John Gielgud as Arthur's butler Hobson who is a man who doesn't mince his words and isn't afraid to speak his mind. Gielgud was fantastic and delivered his dialogue in a dry and understated manner and his character was actually much funnier than the much more brash and obnoxious character that Moore portrayed (well they do say that less is more). I honestly think that this would have been close to being a disaster without Gielgud.Although the first 60 minutes is largely obnoxious and annoying, the final 30 minutes are very good - the scene where we witness Arthur looking after Hobson on his deathbed was genius and very touching. That scene for me was probably one of the best in the film. Although Arthur being sober for a month and then falling off the wagon a few hours before his wedding did feel a little forceful and a little too contrived.Despite some of the problems, this film does have a big heart and it's an interesting social commentary about loneliness and about showing that love and happiness are more important than wealth. I have to admit that even though the climax was somewhat predictable and not all of this worked for me, it did leave me with a smile on my face at the end.

"Susan you're such an a**hole!" Only someone as hopelessly childlike as Arthur could glean a smile from such a comment but his fiancé seems oblivious to his insults. For this is the best he can do as he sits opposite a woman he is forced to marry or be cut off without a cent (US$750million to be exact). Susan adores everything about him (what woman wouldn't?) and come to think of it, most of the people he meets in the film adore him except his family. I certainly would fall at his feet if Arthur Bach were a real character. He has warmth, style and dare I reveal my shallowness - he has pots and pots and pots of money. So what's not to like? This film is utterly charming and hasn't lost any of its appeal even though it's now more than 30 years old. It is a really romantic film at its heart and it is very satisfying watching the helpless manchild fall in love with a charismatic and striking actress, Linda Marolla (played by a quirky Liza Minnelli). Unfortunately this all happens at the same time as he is being manipulated by his powerful family into marrying the beautiful, elegant and how can I put this - a square cardboard cut out of a woman, Susan Johnson. She is beautiful, no question but Arthur, although from old money, acts like a parvenu; he's always drunk and appears to connect with real people and so the vivacious Linda, who's always got a story at the ready to get herself out of trouble, really appeals to him.Arthur's character is a charming playboy whose life revolves around drinking and laughing, and little else. He likes to live it up, a bit like the hellraisers of the eighties but with none of their artistic bent. Arthur is no Ollie Reed or Peter O'Toole, he is a bored multimillionaire which does make him quite a tragic figure. "Some people drink because they are not poets. This is who I am." He desperately tries to explain to the gloriously vacuous Susan. But boy does he come alive when he's on the sauce! Dudley Moore who plays Arthur is very convincing as a drunk and plays it so beautifully. He is certainly the life and soul of the party and the best one liner for me is when he says to his betrothed's butler "Are you sure you want to be a nightclub comic?" when said butler displays all the personality of a walking corpse. Arthur's own butler, Hobson (Sir John Gielgud) needs no introduction and deserved the Oscar he received for his dry and biting wit. "If you and your undergarment could move two paces backwards, I could enter this dwelling." he snorts to Linda's bewildered father as he enters their humble abode. Hobson is an innate snob and even though every utterance is an insult he's such an original that you readily forgive him.As we see the dilemmas that Arthur faces throughout the film, we do see him develop and mature (just a bit). His slightly deranged and eccentric grandmother, Martha is hilarious and I thought she would be a great match for Hobson as they are both inveterate snobs but that would be a totally wild and unbelievable storyline - what was I thinking! If you are still an old romantic at heart (even though thirty years have passed since you may have seen it) watch it again. Arthur and Martha truly lit up my heart as did all the other characters. RIP Dudley Moore and Sir John Gielgud, unforgettable performances, unforgettable film.

Listen up folks..... If you didn't see this movie in 1981 when you were between the ages of 18 and 25-ish you just won't get it. This is a classic comedy film which at the time was seen multiple times by fans, where dialog lines were repeated amongst friends over and over again. And the song, albeit corny now, worked perfectly in 1981 when Chris Cross- type music was the other norm, after the hair bands of course. It's a sweet, funny fairytale with a sad element involved watching Arthur live loud & inappropriately thru the over indulgence of alcohol. Sad state of affairs even today for some of the unhappy rich. I just watched it again tonight having not seen it in a dozen years or more. I laughed throughout. Dudley Moore was at his comedic best. But John Gielgud steals the show with his lines, said dryly as a proper butler would, but hysterical! He won the Academy Award for his role. This was also one of Liza Minnelli's finest moments. Sad, all but 2 of the main characters are dead today. All the more reason to see this movie for the first time or again. Add it to your library of "Films that Left an Impact on a Generation." And watch it with 1981 eyes, even if you were just a twinkle in your mom's eyes at that time! PS> the 2011 version is NOTHING like the original and it's a disgrace to this film and the memory of all involved that this hack-job of a film even carried the same title.