A few quick thoughts about Arthur on Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

As many times as I watched Arthur back in the 80's when

cable television was first introduced, It has been nearly 20

years since I have last seen it. Watching it this evening made

for a fairly fresh viewing experience. I was surprised as how

many parts of the film I had forgotten (including actor Barney

Martin went on to play Seinfeld's father in the hit TV show).


Arthur still holds up fairly well 30 years later, retaining much
of the charm that made the film it the hit it was. Personally,
I think the finest moments in the film involve John Gielgud as

Arthur's butler and it's those scenes with him that made this

film a joy to watch again.


As best as I can remember, Arthur has never looked very

good on any prior video release. The biggest problems I have

always had with the film is how dull it looks. While the transfer

is incredibly immaculate (no blemishes to be seen at all), and

there is definitely more detail to be seen, I still think the film
looks overly soft. Perhaps it was lensed this way -- perhaps

it’s the film stock used.

In any case, Arthur looks decent on Blu-ray, though sound is
another matter as all of it is delegated to the center channel.

I had forgotten this film was mono.


And thank you, Warner, for not playing with the original
Orion film logo. I was afraid the studio would replace it

with their shield banner.


Debating whether to watch Arthur 2: On The Rocks. I saw

it once, and I think I didn’t' like it. Don't want to waste 2 hours

on it if I am only going to hate dislike it again.


Think the Blu-ray is still about $15 on Amazon. I would

highly recommend a purchase if you are a fan of this film.

Warner's done a fine job with this catalog release.

I used to love Arthur. I never purchased it on any home media so I think now is the time. Thanks for the heads up, Ron!

You'd be surprised at how many movies were still mono in the 1980s. Mixing in Dolby Stereo actually cost quite a bit more back then and was considered a luxury. James Cameron said the only reason The Terminator was originally mono was because the studio refused to pay the extra cost for stereo.

Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein

I had forgotten this film was mono.

Click to expand...

I saw "arthur" in 1981 at two different theaters (it was very popular at the time) and at both theaters "arthur" never really looked that good.


The film was a low budget release from Orion pictures in mid summer 1981. As with Orion's release of "Excalibur" the same year, the film was grainy, soft and dull looking - and the DVD and blu-ray are pretty accurate in there presentations.


1981 was not a year for pretty pictures, even though the films were good. The films that did have the pretty look were the big blockbusters like "Raiders of the Lost Ark"

I caught Arthur at the theater very late in it's run- maybe September of '81. There was one thing that made a definite impression on me in regards to the look of the film, and that's the ending sequence as the players come out of the church and there is some banter at the curbside. For some reason that I can't remember now, that sequence I remember as being visually striking. I haven't seen the film in probably about 20 years so I don't know why I felt that way, but that has always stuck with me from that first viewing.

I think I may have owned the LD briefly but don't remember the visual characteristics of it. Its possible I didn't keep it because it either didn't look good, or it was MAR- though I suspect it was the latter.

As soon as I can get my hands on it, I'll watch a few minutes in the middle to acclimate myself to the films general visual qualities, and then flip to the last scene to see if it was filmed differently, or if there was some other aspect that would have struck me such as the lighting due to the time of day or the lens/focal lengths employed.


In any case, it's been a long wait to see this in it's OAR. That alone makes it worthwhile.


BTW, I just finished watching "10" tonight. I'm a little surprised to see so many younger reviewers today dismiss the film as a lightweight, antiquated farce. I was surprised again re-watching it and noticing Edwards slip in some very melancholy, and subtle but darkly shaded punctuations to several scenes. That didn't stay with me the last time I watched it years ago on DVD, but it made an impression last night. Interesting stuff. And I gotta say, the film has a lot more relevancy to me now, than it did when I first snuck into the theater to see it at 13.

Very happy to have it on Bd, and I thought it looked excellent for what it is- very natural and un-manipulated/unprocessed.

I watched the Blu-Ray of "Arthur" over the weekend and really enjoyed seeing it again (I didn't bother with the sequel; one viewing years ago was enough). I saw "Arthur" several times in theaters during its theatrical release and recall that the cinematography was one of the film's weaker elements---the video quality of the Blu-Ray was in line with my expectations.

It's surprising how poorly "Arthur" has fared on DVD. I believe that "Arthur" was one of Warner's earliest DVD releases---and that non-anamorphic, bare-bones release from about 15 years ago was never upgraded. Odd treatment for one of the biggest comedy hits of the early 1980s. "Arthur" opened in July 1981 to numerous good reviews and initially middling box office. Driven by favorable word of mouth, the film played for months in many markets. And I mean months---I was perusing some back issues of Variety online over the weekend and came across the box office rankings for late January 1982. "Arthur," then in its 27th week of national release, was in fifteenth place (even during the glut of Christmas releases in late 1981, it remained in the top 20). Given that level of success, I would have expected better treatment in the post-VHS era. At least the film is finally available in its original aspect ratio.

I also watched this over the weekend. I thought it looked pretty good, much better than I remember ever seeing it before, and I also saw it in the theater back in '81. It's a great movie, full of endearing performances from just about everyone.

I will probably watch Arthur 2 at some point. I remember being disappointed with the film when I saw it in the theater, but I didn't hate it.

Sadly, almost everyone involved with the original movie has passed away (except Liza Minelli and Jill Eikenberry), including writer-director Steve Gordon who died very young shortly after the movie was made. Moore, Gielgud, Geraldine Fitzgerald, Steve Elliott, Ted Ross, Barney Martin, Thomas Barbour - all have passed away.

Among my favorites. Haven't watched it in years since the DVD was foolscreen only. This is the first I've heard about a Bluray. Should' have know it would come out because of that remake. thanks for the heads up!


My favorite part was always the one where, in the middle of the night, he goes looking for where Linda lives and converses with that middle-aged couple. But all those scenes with Arthur and Hopson are priceless. And when Linda's dad says he might give her back that tie for her birthday. Seinfeld's "dad" was outstanding. Oddly, Liza worked okay in this. Hopson's "bowling alley" remark was all the funnier with Liza in the role.

Dang! I need to get this. A top feel good movie. :"He's taking the knife out of the cheese!!" Heh heh! It's all coming back.

The bluray is worth the price just for that one deathless line of dialogue delivered by John Gielgud. And I hope you all know which line I'm talking about, because I can't print it here in the forums!

Hobson to Arthur: "Perhaps you'd like me to wash your d**k for you...you little s**t!!!"

I really should see this movie some time -- I've been saying that for 30 years!. Too bad my PS3 is busted. . .

"Later on we'll get ice cream!"

Never saw Arthur 2, and my experience with Arthur parallels what Ronald said in the first post. It was an 1980s cable phenomenon for me, and the few times I've thought about it since, I sort of figured it would turn out to be one of those films that was very much of its time, and wouldn't age well. Happy to hear everyone's finding it enjoyable, because I certainly look forward to seeing it, however well it is presented on Blu-ray.

Well, I could have sworn the final scene took place at twilight- that's how I always remembered it. But I guess not- unless it was timed differently theatrically.

If you look at the glow surrounding streetlamps, etc- you can see how this was intentionally shot in a very diffused fashion. It looks watchable for what it is.

Frankly I'm just happy to finally have it (though it's kind of insulting that the jacket art front & back is promoting the crappy sequel. I would have rather seen them just make mention in a box on the back that A2 is a 'special feature'. God knows the inclusion of that film wasn't a motivating factor in purchasing this.


Now I hope they get cracking on Outland- another disc I've avoided on DVD due to a poor initial effort.

^ same here on Outland. I'm tired of my old VHS. If they could make it look AT LEAST as good as 2010.

I can't understand why there's a remake of this movie. Sir John Gielgud will always be associated with the original due to his Oscar-winning performance and it seems like an attack on his memory to make this over again. It was done right the first time (albeit with poor video versions), so no need for a remake.

Originally Posted by Cinescott

I can't understand why there's a remake of this movie.

Click to expand...

Because it's a way for Warners to make money. Fans of the original should be happy because there'd be no Blu-ray right now without the remake.

Originally Posted by TravisR





Because it's a way to make money.

Click to expand...

Then remake something that stunk the first time out and do it better. I doubt a remake of a really good movie will break many records at the box office.

Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein


Debating whether to watch Arthur 2: On The Rocks. I saw

it once, and I think I didn’t' like it. Don't want to waste 2 hours

on it if I am only going to hate dislike it again.

Click to expand...

Regarding Arthur 2, I never thought this was a bad movie. Of course it isn't as good as the original, but it still has a lot of the charm and heart that made the first film a success. A sweet movie that compliments the original nicely.

I first saw the original Arthur on a cross-country flight in late 1981, I think. (It could have been summer 1982 - I don't remember the lag time before movies were made available to the airlines at that time...) I enjoyed it then, and I enjoyed it a lot more when I saw it on the "Z" channel in Los Angeles some months later. There's just too many good lines you could quote out of the movie - my favorite stuff usually has to do with Stephen Elliott's Bert Johnson. I didn't see the sequel when it came out because I couldn't understand how they could make it without the original writer/director, Steve Gordon, who tragically passed away so soon after the first film came out.


This Blu-ray afforded me both the ability to finally see Arthur on DVD in a decent presentation, and the chance to see the sequel essentially for no additional cash. Like everyone else, I stayed away from the earlier DVD because it was non-anamorphic. In thinking about it, it's clear why there really are no extras on the Blu-ray other than the presence of the sequel - namely that almost every major principal creative player is no longer with us - Gordon, Dudley Moore, John Gielgud, Stephen Elliott, Geraldine Fitzgerald, etc. I suppose they could get Richard Schickel to do a presentation commentary like the ones he's done in the past, but that would interfere with the simple pleasure the movie provides without any other voices intruding on it.

I took the time to go through the sequel and wasn't that impressed. It wasn't as bad as I expected, but, while it's good-natured enough, it just rehashes things we've seen in the first film in different ways. That, and the cast looking considerably older and more tired, doesn't help the situation much. But it's nice to have it on the disc as a companion piece.


I haven't seen the new film, and don't really intend to. I'm happy enough with the original, and the new film has already served its purpose for me - making it possible for me to see the original in the best way I can.


BTW I agree that the picture quality, even on Blu, is a bit soft. But I also agree that this is the way Arthur has always looked - this was never a shimmering big-budget film. It was and is a simple film about a loveable millionaire drunk, kept bubbling by clever writing and directing, and by the warmth and fun of all the performers in it.