We've discussed remakes many times over here and the question of the necessity of the do-over comes up nearly every time. Was this remake really necessary? If so, had enough time elapsed between the original and the new film to justify a remake? The answers to those questions usually have to do with one's affinity to the original. If you really love a movie, you'll probably feel that a remake is never going to be OK. Many consider the 1981 version of Arthur to be a comedy classic, so the idea of a remake is a touchy subject. Is the new version justified?

Russell Brand stars in the titular role in Arthur. He is a very rich playboy who is an alcoholic and treats life as if it's one big party. He's constantly entertaining strange ladies and getting into trouble. His only companion, beside his chauffeur Bitterman (Luis Guzman), is his nanny, Hobson (Helen Mirren). Despite the fact that Arthur is an adult, Hobson feels that she must constantly keep him out of trouble. Arthur is summoned to see his mother, Vivienne (Geraldine James), who tells him that he must marry the uptight and stern Susan (Jennifer Garner) or he will be cut off from the family fortune. Arthur hates this idea, but he hates the idea of facing reality even more. While walking through the city, he meets Naomi (Greta Gerwig), who gives unauthorized tours of New York landmarks. Arthur is immediately smitten with this woman and attempts to woo her. Now Arthur is trapped between the idea of pursuing true love or losing his easy life.

Dudley Moore was riding high on the success of 10 when Arthur was released in 1981 and it became a smash hit. It was nominated for four Oscars and won two. (Can you imagine a time when silly comedies won Academy Awards? What a time that must have been.) The movie is considered by many to be a comedy classis. But, is it a cultural touchstone? I remember seeing it in the early 80s and while I thought that it was funny, it didn't leave much of an impression on me. Russell Brand is one of the most divisive people working in entertainment today. Some find him very funny and are delighted by his quirkiness. Some think that he's one-note hack who has no business being in show-business. I come down somewhere in the middle. I wouldn't go out of my way to see something that he's in, but I do think that he can be funny. (And he appears to be smarter than he lets on.)

Given these two ideas, it's not surprising that the idea of a remake of Arthur would ruffle some feathers and the movie was blasted by critics during its theatrical release. And judging by its mediocre box-office, it didn't strike a chord with movie-goers. (My guess is that older fans of the original had no interest in this movie while younger viewers had no idea what it was supposed to be.) Given all of that, I was pleasantly surprised by the movie. I don't want to give the movie too much credit, but it does what a remake needs to do -- it follows the plot of the original movie, while bringing in modern flare and new material. The movie is quite funny at times, and also delivers a good amount of emotion during the third act.

As with many remakes, one's reaction to Arthur is going to be proportional to one's affection towards the original. Again, I wasn't bowled over by the 1981 version (although, it does have some classic lines), and I found this new version to be funny and charming. Those who don't know Arthur should definitely give this a shot. However, be prepared for a movie which combines slapstick and obvious jokes with some sly one-liners and some sad moments in the third act.

Arthur made me wonder if that bed real on Blu-ray Disc courtesy of Warner Home Video. The film has been letterboxed at 1.85:1 and the Disc contains an AVC 1080p HD transfer which runs at 15 Mbps. The image is somewhat sharp and shows no defects from the source material. But, the low bitrate isn't the only odd thing about this video transfer. Anytime the background is white or a light color, the grain is very obvious here. The complexions look waxy at times and the image was slightly dark. The colors were OK, but the picture was soft in some scenes. The Disc carries a DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 track which runs at 48 kHz and an average of 4.0 Mbps. The track provides clear dialogue and sound effects. The audio does a better job than the video, as the stereo effects, especially those in the street scenes, are very noticeable. The surround sound effects aren't quite as prevalent, but they work in crowd scenes, most notably the one in the church. The opening scene provides some good subwoofer effects.

The Arthur Blu-ray Disc contains only three extra features. "Arthur Unsupervised!" (11 minutes) is an odd featurette which contains comments from Brand, Mirren, and Director Jason Winer, which are punctuated by alternate takes from the movie. So, this isn't a real of deleted scenes, but it contains many shots which aren't in the movie. The focus here is on the improvisation in the movie. "Additional Footage" (10 minutes) does contain deleted and extended scenes, seven of them in fact. There are a few funny moments here, and I'm surprised they cut the employment office scene. The final extra is a 90-second GAG REEL.