Monday Morning Quarterback Part I

By BOP Staff

April 11, 2011

See you in the NBA, big guy.

New at BOP:
Share & Save
Digg Button  
Print this column

Here, have a drink.

Kim Hollis: Arthur, the remake of the 1981 comedy, earned $12.2 million this weekend. What do you think of this opening? Also, how do you think this impacts Russell Brand's career?

Brett Beach: When I first heard this announced, I thought that Brand and Helen Mirren were ideal latter-day casting and I was excited for it, but I think this falls under the heading of remakes that are bad ideas from a marketing standpoint. The original was hugely successful financially, and depending on what you read, also one of the most beloved comedies of the 1980s. But it really has no resonance, I would imagine, with anyone under 35, and those who were at that age 30 years ago, well, I don't know why they would feel inclined to see a remake. Good reviews would be crucial to help this branch out above the 18-34 demo, and those were not forthcoming. Brand may have more of a continuing career with animation voiceover than acting, but maybe his future will lie in supporting roles rather than leads?

Shalimar Sahota: I can't understand why Warners thought this was a good idea to begin with. Was anyone really desperate for an Arthur remake? Still, in selling audiences a quintessential man-child, they've succeeded, since this is a total Russell Brand vehicle. But I feel that he'll have to do something completely out of character should he wish to open another live action film higher than this. That it cost Warner $40 million means that this won't be a total loss.

Josh Spiegel: I'm with Shalimar on this one. What did Warner Bros. think they were getting out of remaking this movie? I've seen the original, and while it's good, it's not a) dying to be remade and b) untouchable enough that a remake shouldn't have existed. Looking at this and Hop, we can see that Russell Brand isn't a box-office draw, at all. Hop may be doing well, but would it be doing any worse with someone else as the lead voice? I doubt it.




Advertisement



Edwin Davies: As others have said, the main problem with this remake was that there wasn't really any reason for it. Arguably, there are rarely any good reasons for films to be remade, but this one seemed especially pointless given that the original occupies a weird middle ground in the pop culture consciousness of being just well known enough that people are aware of its existence, yet not so well known that there is any great deal of brand recognition. It also doesn't help that the reviews have been pretty poor since a decent critical showing could have got more people interested.

I think this will relegate Brand to supporting roles for a few years, which may be the best place for him. I really like him as a performer (he's also a pretty good writer, and I'd recommend his [awfully titled] memoir My Booky Wook to anyone) but his schtick can get exhausting unless he is used sparingly.

David Mumpower: The decision Warner Bros. made with Arthur was based in pragmatism. Marketing costs for unknown brands have become so outrageous that anything with name recognition merits strong consideration for a remake/sequel. None of us like it, but this is the world in which we live. I agree with Brett that this project got the casting right, something of a rarity these days. Everything other than that has been the inevitable fallout from what Shalimar, Josh and Edwin have mentioned. What has to go hand in hand with name recognition is a sense of loss in the absence of something. Arthur did not have that in the least. In fact, this reminds me of another well cast remake of a (generally) British film, Bedazzled. Sadly, that Brendan Fraser release from 2000 opened better even before we adjust for inflation.

With regards to how this impacts Russell Brand's career, I think that we should focus on the fact that he is being given lead roles in movies, no matter how temporary that may be. Yes, this places him in the not-so-exclusive company of Dane Cook, Jimmy Fallon and Tom Green and these comparisons may be intentional. Still, he's been in three comedies, two of which have been well received. I think that buys him a pass here. In fact, I think that as long as Katy Perry stays hot, Brand keeps getting work.

To a larger point, Arthur is a good example of the madness of the movie making process. If there has to be a remake of that film, Brand is absolutely perfect casting and Helen Mirren is a masterstroke. And the people who made those decisions may get fired over doing their jobs perfectly.


Continued:       1       2

     


 
 

Need to contact us? E-mail a Box Office Prophet.
Friday, March 29, 2024
© 2024 Box Office Prophets, a division of One Of Us, Inc.