Overrated and overhyped

One of the worst movies I've ever seen

Just so...so bad

All that we are seeing on the screen is happening with real people, real action sequences in the background, forcing the eye to watch as if we were there.

The tag line is "The World's Richest Playboy", Arthur Bach (Moore), is a dipsomaniacal millionaire in NYC, who squanders money on drinks and female companions at the drop of a hat, only his dissolute bachelor days are numbered because he is arranged to walk down the isle with Susan Johnson (Eikenberry), a girl from a well-minted family but he doesn't love, otherwise he will be cut off from his gazillion inheritance, and just at that crunch, he meets the girl of his dream, Linda Marolla (Minnelli), a waitress from Queens, and the rest of the story is not difficult to conjecture, it is a choice between love and money, if Arthur has to relinquish one, what will he choose? ARTHUR is director/writer Steve Gordon's only feature film, who prematurely died of a heart attack in 1982, it is a box office sensation and also incredibly, a victorious Oscar contender, broad comedies embraced by the academy has become more and more like gold dust as time goes by, Sir John Gielgud, won an Oscar for his prudent, sophisticated impersonation of Hobson, Arthur's devout butler and indeed, a father figure to him, whose mordant elocution and snobbish/avuncular poise is the perfect antidote of Arthur's excessive jests when he is plastered, also his bowing out denouement tactfully renders the film its well-earned moment of poignancy. Another Oscar is awarded to its theme song, BEST THAT YOU CAN DO, a timeless ear-worm penned by Burt Bacharach and co. and performed by a clear-voiced belter Christopher Cross. Dudley Moore, reaps his sole Oscar nomination with this unrivalled comedy tour-de-force (graced with his accomplished piano bravura), it is really at a premium that a comedian can tips the emotional scale of his viewers apropos of a character that initially smacks of crudeness, intemperance and gaucheness. A pint-size dynamo, Mr. Moore injects an honest-t0-goodness likability once we knows Arthur better, he is a none-too-objectionable man-child and devoid of any wiles awash in the adult society, cocooned in his money-gilded bubble since his birth, but eventually he braves himself to face an impending sea change when he falls in love for the very first time, and Arthur's transmogrification doesn't, as one might habitually dread, comes off as overly mawkish or unduly therapeutic, there is a bracing message in this tall-tale: Arthur doesn't have to better himself to get the girl, instead, he is still the old self when the film reaches its coda, his drinking problem is hard to peter away, so is his compulsive joke-cracking under the influence one might surmise, the only thing has changed is that he experiences love and loss, and is not afraid of getting out of his comfort zone (although the ending lets rip a knowing whiff of jubilation, actually you can have your cake and eat it too!), and lucky enough to find someone who can reciprocate his feelings because who he is, not what he is bestowed (here I mean Linda, not Hobson).On the petticoat front, Ms. Minnelli's puckish moxie is a good match of Arthur's benign wackiness, and Irish veteran Geraldine Fitzgerald evidently have a field day as Arthur's savvy grandmother Martha, everyone must behave on her say-so. By and large, it is a nicely surprising finding that this ostensibly crass comedy actually has wits in the hearts of its hackneyed story and perkily runs rings around most of its contemporaneous light entertainment from an infertile industry.

Arthur (1981)I'm no Dudley Moore fan, but this grew on me and I found him not only hilarious but, as intended, touching. He is supported by two very different kinds of actors—John Gielgud and Liza Minnelli—but they form a wonderful trio.The story is a timeless one—the rich man who is out of touch with what really matters in life. This isn't pushed very far, and the end is pretty inevitable, but the journey is great fun mostly because Moore is relentlessly funny. Minnelli plays a great strong woman foil to him, and is obviously what he needs in life. The "romance" between them is never very convincing because it remains a bit practical—they don't have that great scene where we expect them to truly "fall in love," and that's just fine. (The closest is the scene in the horse barn, which has one of the funnies lines in the movie, which almost feels like a Moore ad lib, you'll see.)The aging butler played by Gielgud is more nuanced and funny than the cliché of the English butler in so many movies. It's weird to see him play this kind of role when his repertoire ranges more to Shakespeare (he's one of England's great 20th Century stage actors).So love this not for the story, which is lovable but plain, but for the three actors and their ongoing wit and verve. A fun fun movie.

In New York, the reckless millionaire Arthur Bach (Dudley Moore) is frequently in the headlines since he is permanently drunk. However he is a warmhearted person raised by his butler Hobson (John Gielgud). When he stumbles with Linda Marolla (Liza Minnelli) in a store, he notes that she is shoplifting a tie and he decides to follow her with Hobson. Arthur helps Linda when the security guard arrests her and they date in the night. They fall in love with each other, but Arthur's father and grandmother want him to marry the also millionaire Susan Johnson (Jill Eikenberry); otherwise they will take his fortune. What will Arthur do?"Arthur" is an overrated romantic comedy from the early 80's. The problem is that there is no worthwhile character or message in the story. Arthur is an alcoholic reckless man. He meets Linda when she is shoplifting in a store. Her father is a greedy man. Hobson is a snobbish man and when he goes to Linda's house, he feels totally uncomfortable. The nicest character is the driver Bitterman. My vote is six.Title (Brazil): "Arthur, o Milionário Sedutor" ("The Seductive Millionaire")

First I am wondering how this movie has an overall 6.9 of 10 rating? Then I began reading the reviews and many of you who wrote fantastic reviews for got to select your rating. and I think if you forget to actually select the ratings number that it counts it is sort of a 0. Then I actually saw some really low reviews and I couldn't figure it out but I think that the people are younger people and don't appreciate a smart witty clean language comedy you can watch in mixed company or family. One of the reviewers even hated the film because they thought it was horrible that Auther was a drunk. They were worried about the wrong social message being sent. Now that is a younger "politically correct" person. I wish IMDb would add age group to our profiles. There were so many great movies that would no longer be made in Hollywood in this PC generation. also Alexis got a lot of bad language, sexual innuendo, low brow humor, CGI, special effects, stunts, etc. Hollywood wouldn't Produce and the current generation will not even go see something this good because I don't have any attention span. I was a sophomore in high school when this came out and I thought it was so hilarious I can't imagine any of today's 15 to 25 loving this movie. another great thing is that a lot of this movie was shot on location something that don't do as much of today due to computer graphics. But this truly was a fantastic movie. Great storyline, acting, casting, serious issues as well as humor. everyone who has given this movie a good review please go back in and make sure that you selected the star rating. I could watch this movie once every 3 months and never get tired of it. and for the life of me I have no idea why they remade this movie I'm so tired of Hollywood remaking good movies and that's all they show on the TV is the new versions instead of the original. Viewing this movie is never a waste of time. it was a long time between this movie and the sequel that didn't come out until 1988 I believe and it got bashed but the sequel wasn't really that bad but nothing is as good as the original