The 5 Most Pointless Remakes In Movie History

5) Arthur (2011)

The 1981 version of Arthur was quite incredible in the way it managed to successfully align our sympathies with an eccentric drunk billionaire. It probably helped that as viewers, we were always once removed from the eponymous character, and weren’t forced to contend with the bad breath, the whiff of liquor mixed with sweat, and the worryingly haggard appearance of the guy in person. But nevertheless, up on the screen Arthur is a charming and funny individual despite his permanent state of intoxication, with Dudley Moore even managing to win over audiences who’d previously asserted that he wasn’t quite their cup of tea.

Arthur was a tricky sell, but by a small miracle, just about everything in the movie worked. Did the people behind the remake honestly believe that another astonishing feat would come along and make their rehash a success, too? Russell Brand’s battle with addiction in his personal life has been highly publicized, and someone clearly thought that the comedian could channel his real-life experience with addiction and wealth into the modernized character of Arthur Bach for the remake. Is this the best idea for a comedy? Casting a former addict in the role of a permanently sloshed billionaire? It hits a little too close to home if you ask me.

There is simply no need for a retread of this material. The original was very much a product of its time, and an unlikely success given who the movie was asking us to root for. The remake fails in every place where the original got away with it. It’s difficult to imagine that there is the same sort of audience for Dudley Moore as there is for Russell Brand, and the fact that the movie barely made back its budget proved this theory. You can’t create a lovable, drunk movie billionaire twice.