ALERT VIEWER Comedy. Starring Russell Brand, Greta Gerwig, Helen Mirren and Jennifer Garner. Directed by Jason Winer. (PG-13. 110 minutes. At Bay Area theaters.)

No one remembers this, but there were things about "Arthur" that already seemed weird and outdated in 1981. The central character was a happy drunk, but a drunk all the same, and the movie celebrated his drunkenness as some kind of exuberant life choice, when all the audience could see was a slobbering alcoholic. The movie also saddled him with a true love who seemed more like a life sentence, in the form of Liza Minnelli.

So in many ways the new "Arthur" is an improvement on the old. It acknowledges the 2-ton elephant in the living room, which is its protagonist's alcoholism, and it takes care to provide him with a leading lady worth risking one's fortune for - Greta Gerwig. And in Russell Brand it finds a worthy successor to Dudley Moore, one who's almost as funny and just as English, but one who also has a darkness inside him that feels right for the times and for the character.

This is, after all, the story of a man who insists on not growing up. He can't stay a boy forever, like Peter Pan, but he's rich enough to ward off all possibilities for growth by preserving himself in alcohol. He calls this his "gift for defying death with fun." Brand keeps it light, but just by virtue of being himself, he suggests something complicated and damaged that's driving his freneticism.

In the 30 years since the original "Arthur," we've seen a Puritan revival and the devastation of AIDS, and perhaps something within us just doesn't trust fun the way we used to. Arthur's parties are made to look ugly, full of hangers-on wanting to rip him off, and his adventures seem pathetic. The latter might not be intentional, but from the opening scene, in which Arthur crashes his replica of the Batmobile, his exploits are more sad than high-spirited.

The movie knows what you're thinking: Who is this irresponsible idiot, throwing money away on toys, when people are hurting out there? In a bum economy, it's asking a lot to make audiences care about the existential angst of a rich guy.

Yet to "Arthur's" credit, it walks its delicate line very well, getting us to care about Arthur's pain, even as it acknowledges the wider world of pain that exists outside his circle. If Moore's Arthur was a little boy in the world of men, Brand's Arthur is an endearing boy in a world of women, his life run by his no-nonsense but caring butler, Hobson (Helen Mirren), and his stern, ungiving mother (Geraldine James). Dreading the day when their investment company might fall into Arthur's shaky hands, Mom insists that he marry Susan (Jennifer Garner) - or else forgo his inheritance.

Actually, condemnation to a marriage with Jennifer Garner and $950 million doesn't exactly sound like torture, so a big task of the movie is to convince us that Arthur's emotional and spiritual fulfillment rides on his being able to spend his life with Naomi (Gerwig), a working-class tour guide he just happens to meet at Grand Central Terminal. Gerwig has sweetness and authenticity and looks at Arthur in a way that lets us know she sees him, and sees through him.

The problems of "Arthur" are mostly ones of scale. The set pieces are too big, and the movie becomes too labored. It forces Arthur to remain static as a character for too long a period, stretching Brand's charm and innovation close to the snapping point. Possibly for these reasons, the movie lacks joy. It has poignancy and intelligence, and it holds interest, but it never opens up into happiness and fantasy. Maybe it's the recession.

In medicine, some transplants take and others don't. In movies, you can transplant a concept into another era and have it almost make it, or sort of make it. "Arthur" survives 2011, but the things that might have made it thrive - its innocence and freshness - were lost along the way.

-- Advisory: Sexual situations, substance abuse.