ARTHUR (2011 remake) (a review)

ARTHUR (2011 remake) (a review)

This is a remake of the classic Dudley Moore movie about a constantly drunk millionaire who is forced to choose between his money (and marrying a woman he doesn't love) or the woman he loves. This version stars Russell Brand in I believe his 1st starring role in a big American film after having small roles in movies like FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL and hosting the MTV awards and marrying Katy Perry.

The story: Arthur (Brand) is a child-like billionaire, who avoids work and responsibility and anything remotely not-silly or un-childlike. His mother wants the family to continue running their company and clearly he is incompetant for it, so she wants him to marry some corporate woman who will be able to take over. Arthur doesn't want to -- he doesn't like the woman although I believe he has already slept with her before -- but his mother threatens to cut him off financially so he agrees. And then he meets a woman he actually connects to and falls in love with her. That starts the central question -- love or money -- who will Arthur marry?

Was it good?

No. The biggest problem was Brand as Arthur. The weird silly child thing combined with the playboy sex addict just wasn't interested. And it just wasn't funny. I'm too tired to write more. There really just wasn't anything that worked for me here. There's this idea (I think) that some childhood trauma made him now reject the grown-up world and pursue childhood fantasy...except he doesn't really do that in any real way. He is childlike and they want to make it seem like he has more going on, but really he's just kind of a selfish dick. I mean, with his money -- if he wanted to pursue the childlike sense of wonder -- he could be entertaining children or doing children's theater or running a play group. In fact, a story where he is running an elementary school that emphasizes play and imagination but his mom wants him to take over the company would have been much more interested. Here, he's just a brat. And really not even love redeemed him of that.

*** AVOID ***

NIGHT OF THE DEMONS (2010) (a review)

NIGHT OF THE DEMONS (2010) (a review)

This is a remake. Seriously. What, you never heard of the original movie, made in the 80's that went straight to dvd? Yes, they are now making remakes of straight to dvd horror films. (* correction it did have a small theatrical release that even I, who loe horror films, had never heard of.)

I have to ask why? I know it's wiki page says the original is now a "cult classic" but who the hell are those people. I know a lot of horror fans and, sure, the original is liked as a fun little movie with scream queen Linnea Quigley, but you could point to any of her (or Michelle Bauer or Brinke Stevens) movies and call them "classics" just as easily. What's next, a remake of EVIL TOONS? BLOOD DINER? Because really if you are going to remake this movie you might as well just walk down the aisle at the local video store (wait, do video stores still exists?) and remake them all.

And I'm not against remakes. I understand pre-branding and better audience recognition and I'm fine with it. But usually there is a clear reason to do the remake -- either the original was cool and you have a way to do an interesting update of it (THE FLY) or you just want to cash in on the original (anything by Lionsgate). But a remake of a barely-more-than-straight to dvd horror film? Really?

The story: kids to a party Halloween night at a creepy house where a bunch of people died thrown by this girl Angela. The police bust the party but some kids become trapped and then Angela becomes a demon and starts infecting people and they have to try to survive until sunrise when the demons will vanish.

Was it good?

No. and it's a shame because the original was a fun-but-cheesey little horror film.

(poster for the original movie)

However, this movie just doesn't get it right. The original was made in the hey-day of fun sex-and-death horror movies. That's what the 80's scream queen films were all about. It was silly, it was sexy, it was let's get drunk and screw our brains out and --whoops!-- there are demons and now we're going to die in a very over-the-top way. This movie has a lot of the elements -- good looking girls, spin-the-bottle, demons who do weird things to people...but it never really finds the fun. It's kind of a downer to be honest. I'm not sure I can explain it. There are beautiful girls in the movie, but it's like the filmmakers didn't enjoy having beautiful women in the film, the camera doesn't linger the way it should to enjoy and show off how beautiful they are. There's making out and a sex scene, but again there isn't quite that voyeuristic enjoyment of those scenes. And there's some kinky violence, but the film makers never seem to quite embrace it. It's like they want to minimize all the things that made the original a fun horror film and they put them there because they had too...but then what is it that they wanted, what was that cool, fun things they wanted to make instead? I couldn't tell you. There's nothing really with the characters or the camera or demons or anything to really get a sense of what it was the filmmakers thought would be fun instead of the stuff that was fun in the original.

It makes the whole film feel...soulless.

It's a shame. The girls are beautiful. Some of the effects are good. The house looked good. There's no reason why they couldn't make a fun little screamer...

...but they didn't.

*** AVOID ***