Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer: The late Dudley Moore had the most famous role of his too-short career in 1981's ARTHUR, a raucously funny and alternately touching tale that generates warm smiles, big belly-laughs, and an occasional tear if you're in the right mood. Moore received a Best Actor Oscar nomination for his performance as Arthur Bach, a drunken playboy who "races cars, plays tennis, fondles women, but he has weekends off and he's his own boss." Arthur is destined to inherit 750 million dollars when he marries a snooty society girl named Susan Johnston (Jill Eikenberry)who is the spoiled daughter of an undercover gangster. Things get sticky when Arthur meets Linda Morolla (Liza Minnelli) a waitress/struggling actress from Queens who steals neckties for her father's birthday. Moore lights up the screen in one of the single funniest performances of the last 50 years. The late Sir John Gielgud won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his flawless turn as Arthur's acid-tongued butler and best friend, Hobson, whose outward disdain for Arthur's behavior covers more paternal feelings. There are other funny contributions by Barney Martin as Linda's father. Stephen Elliott as Susan's father, and Geraldine Fitzgerald as Arthur's demented grandmother. The film was directed with a keen eye for comedy by a first time director named Steve Gordon, who, sadly, died the following the year. There was also a forgettable sequel several years later, but this instant classic is not to be missed.

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: This movie was way over-hyped. A lot of the viewers, who thought this was "amazing" must have been into the old school movies, cause the whole movie is set in the past. At first I thought the movie was just showing something from the past, so I was expecting that faded dreamy like lighting on the characters to pass, but it just going. Basically this was a movie trying to mix the future with the past, and the 2 don't mix very well in this movie, even with special effects. You could actually see the blue screen the actors were working with. There are too many movies out there that do exactly what this movie did, so there is no reason for critics to hype this movie up saying "it's the greatest movie ever done". It's just crap on a stick. It also didn't help that the story line was sooo crappy. I don't understand why Hollywood agreed to have this movie produced, and I also don't understand how actors/actresses in this movie are willing to be in a movie like this. It's almost as though everybody read the script and forgot to read the fine print..."It will all be done on a computer". This was a movie that should have been on a movie network, because nothing about this movie was revolutionary. I'm very upset with myself for paying money to see this. Whatever you do, don't waste your time and money on this movie today or tomorrow.

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer:
This film is a good example of how through media manipulation you can sell a film that is no more than a very unfunny TV sitcom. In Puerto Rico the daily newspaper with the widest circulation has continuously written about the marvels of this film, almost silencing all others. Coincidentally the newspaper with the second largest circulation belongs to the same owners. The weekly CLARIDAD is the only newspaper on the island that has analyzed the film's form and content, and pointed out all its flaws, cliches, and bad writing.

Just because a film makes a portion of the audience laugh with easy and obvious jokes, and because one can recognize actors and scenery, does not make it an acceptable film.