Manny The Movie Guy /

Russell Brand’s charm eluded me, there I said it. Besides his comedic turn as a party boy rock star in 2008’s "Forgetting Sarah Marshall, " I could not quite understand his popularity.

So I was nervous upon hearing that Brand would step into the beloved role of Arthur Bach in the remake of the 1981 original memorably played by Dudley Moore. I’m happy to report now that Brand is a worthy successor. This is his most accessible role to date.

It did take me a while though to warm up to Brand’s performance. Let’s face it, the original version is still fresh in our memories. But once we met the cast of characters, I was ready to embrace this new take about the pampered rich boy from New York City.

Taken from the original Oscar-winning "Arthur’s Theme " by Christopher Cross, Arthur does as he pleases and lives his life one day at a time. Together with his driver Bitterman (Luis Guzman), Arthur picks up prostitutes, drinks a lot, and makes a mess of his life.

Trying to protect Arthur from all his indiscretions is his nanny and best friend, Hobson, played with ferocious but maternal intensity by Helen Mirren. If the original is about Arthur’s lack of patriarchal guidance, this new film focuses on his mommy issues.

Arthur’s mother, Vivienne (Geraldine James), is the head of the family foundation, Bach Worldwide. In cahoots with the beautiful but unlovable Susan Johnson (Jennifer Garner playing against type), Vivienne gives Arthur an ultimatum: marry Susan or say goodbye to his billion-dollar inheritance.

Nick Nolte makes a rare appearance as Susan’s father, Burt. He’s a self-made man who loathes Arthur but loves his money. Arthur is inclined to take the deal of marrying Susan as a business proposal until he falls for Naomi (Greta Gerwig in the Liza Minnelli role).

Directed by Jason Winer (TV’s "Modern Family ") and written by Peter Baynham ("Borat," "Bruno"), this "Arthur" borrows heavily from both the original and the 1988 sequel, "Arthur 2: On the Rocks."

Much like the sequel, Arthur tries hard to find his purpose, even quitting drinking in order to win the girl of his dreams. Hobson is also given a more prominent role which Mirren succeeds in playing although it’s very hard to erase Sir John Gielgud’s memory who won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for the role.

I did enjoy Mirren’s monologue near the end where she explains Arthur’s persona to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. And both films, the original and the remake, depend highly on the chemistry between Arthur and Hobson, and Brand and Mirren succeeded.

If I have to describe both movies, I would call the original tart and the remake sweet. The 1981 version, thanks to the once-in-a-lifetime convergence of Moore, Gieldgud, and Minnelli, was more interested in the intricacies of growing up rich but purposeless.

The new version is more interested in the delightful dynamics between Arthur and Hobson, and Arthur and Naomi. Gerwig, who started in the movie business acting in independent films, nearly stole the show as a wide-eyed ingénue who loves Arthur and hates his money. She’s the pauper who may be turned into a princess with the help of her prince charming.

In the end, "Arthur " is really a fairy tale disguised as a social commentary. The original film was successful in toning down its fairy tale characteristics but the new version revels in it. They even paid homage to the moon in New York City.

But the best that you can do as an "Arthur " fan is take a peek at the remake and then watch the original again. That’s exactly what I did! Kudos to Brand and company for trying their best, but gosh I forgot how much I love the original. I know it’s crazy, but it’s true.