ARTHUR

ARTHUR (Rated PG-13 for some vulgarity, profanity, mild sexuality, nonstop drinking):  Remakes call for comparisons and usually fall far short of the originals.  True here, too.

The original 1981 version became known as a delightful copy of the 30s screwball comedies in which the rich were cast as silly, materialistic nincompoops alongside the Great Depression masses who out of necessity made sense with their lives and were even forgiven for blunting the law when it seemed pragmatically correct. 

Think "Mr. Deeds goes to Town," "My Man Godfrey," and "The Awful Truth" as examples.  Clever dialog, smart plot, excellent acting all around, backed in this case by writer/director Steve Gordon, who struck it right with  his first attempt to leave the boob tube for a stint on the silver screen.

None of the above attributes are found in this remake.  Dudley Moore is replaced by Russell Brand, a mugging, smarty-pants Brit with a Cockney accent you could cut with a knife - funny, perhaps, when he's on firm ground in his own territory, but badly used in what apparently is a vehicle created especially to introduce him to American audiences.  John Gielgud as Arthur's manservant won an Oscar for his portrayal, something not deserving of Helen Mirren's portrayal as Arthur's nanny surrogate, proving that even a well established actress - arched eyebrow, knowing smirk and all - could not bring life to the role as written.

Hard as they might, none of the cast could make much of lines like Ms. Mirren's sarcastic, "Get it over with, Arthur; it won't take long.  Then we can watch cartoons."  The gag, you see, is that her ward is a perpetual pre-adolescent, surrounded by toys and pouting childishly whenever crossed.  No, the dialog is not exactly stellar.

The plots are similar: Arthur wants to drink endlessly, play around with the common people (whom he astounds by throwing money at them by the handful), then falls for a girl of the street, but in order to keep his millions, must marry a wealthy dominatrix to satisfy family, finally finding a way to get his way without parental discontent.  The problem is, every change made in the original plot sinks because it is unimaginatively handled.  The dialog rarely makes sense - much of it apparently improvised. Fact is, none of the cast do it well.  What's to be meant by mother's, "If there's one thing an old woman can do it's recognize a man in love."  It comes awkwardly, doesn't fit into the trend of the scene at all.

Oddly, while much is made of Arthur living in a magnificent, spacious high rise apartment, there is no one around but his nanny and, when a chuckle is called for, his chauffeur, who slips in and out of the plot whether in the car or bedroom.

The same haphazardness occurs with the subplot - the girl of the street suddenly becoming a successful writer (in Alice-in-wonderland dresses, studding her sentences with "Akshully!" - where'd that come from?  Or a sudden unexplained change of heart from lush to responsible, loving fellow - just to bring about a happy ending?

On and on - flat, conventional writing from Peter Baynham, who seems to pay more attention to matching the original than trying to be clever on its own, with director Jason Winer struggling desperately to spark some good laughs into the mix.  Only Uta Brieswitz's interesting on-locale filming around The Big Apple's  streets & parks keep it from sinking entirely.  (Grade: D+)