Old man meets young woman. Old man falls in love with young woman. Sex ensues.
The three aforementioned plot points, often the linchpin of modern independent films, could not have been presented in a more boring way in the new film “Arthur Newman.”
The tale of two hopeless individuals, Colin Firth and Emily Blunt, “Arthur Newman” begins with Newman (Firth) paying $3,000 to a shady figure in order to purchase the identity of a dead man.
In order to escape his troubled past, Newman begins on a cross-country journey in an old Mercedes to find his new identity.
Along the way, trouble ensues when Newman meets Mike (Blunt), who has also stolen someone’s identity.
Their journey to Illinois, where Newman hopes to make it as a golf pro, is filled with crazy, ridiculous antics.
The tale of two lost souls who embark on a cross-country sex-filled love affair had potential, but ultimately fell through in the last half.
While the themes about finding one’s real identity are extremely relatable, “Arthur Newman” failed to connect with the audience emotionally.
Instead of manifesting itself as a feature film, “Arthur Newman” felt more like a documentary about a boring man who does boring things.
A change in direction, or intent, would have served the film well.
With its often-dark gray lens, “Arthur Newman” left audiences bored, depressed and hopeless.
In the trailers, “Arthur Newman” presented itself as a fresh romantic comedy with two of Britain’s finest actors.
In reality, the film was more of an introspective drama that asked big questions but answered none of them.
Questioning life’s existence was the film’s ambition, though the last half failed to answer the seemingly unanswerable question.
Despite its numerous shortcomings, “Arthur Newman” did have a few redeemable qualities.
Firth and Blunt excelled at portraying their respective characters, with Firth giving a memorable performance as the boring, depressed character.
Blunt, whose portrayal rivaled her roles in “Wild Target” and “Looper,” was equally as good.
It’s clear that the two actors had a chemistry together, although the film did not do enough to let it grow.
More improvisation rather than forced lines of stupid dialogue would have made the film more memorable and inspiring.
Whether the film’s intention was to perplex, mystify or entertain audiences is unclear.
Combining existentialist questions, awkward sex scenes and lame dialogue made “Arthur Newman” easily forgettable.
Like so many failed romantic comedies before it, the film will be relegated to gathering dust in the value bins in a video store.