Arthur 2: On the Rocks (1988) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
45 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
10/10
harmless fun and very touching
lotsafun11 November 2005
Arthur 2 may just touch your heart. It touched mine. It's really a very sweet and charming film and it's unfortunate that it's so underrated. Arthur 2 made me smile, laugh, and shed more than a few happy tears. It's been said that the original Arthur didn't require a sequel, but it's a pleasure spending more time with the characters. 99% of the fantastic cast of the original returned for this one. It's especially wonderful to see more of Dudley Moore as Arthur. I love Arthur! There are plenty of funny, cute, and charming moments in Arthur 2. The moments with Hobson and Arthur at Christmastime are especially touching. I'm very happy that they made Arthur 2.
35 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
A beautiful little film.
Dock-Ock21 June 2001
This has got to be one of the most under-rated and under seen sequels in history. Arthur 2 is not as good as the film that preceeded it but it is NOT a bad film. Arthur 2 if anything gives us the film that Dudley Moore and Steve Gordon were trying to back in 1981. One of the main criticism's is that it gives out a bad message the alcoholism is good. The film does nothing of the sort, Arthur strives through out the film to change his drinking ways and succeeds in the final part of the film. The film itself is not as funny as Arthur was, but you hardly notice this because it tells a good dramatic story.

Bud Yorkin handles the direction excellently, and the movie contains a magical back drop of Christmas time New York. Dudley is again funny and like-able, just as he was in Arthur, allthough both the Actor and the Character have matured. Liza Minelli is again kookie as Linda, allthough she plays the role like the preceeding seven years took place within a week. Nothing changes with her performance and one is greatful. One really feels for Arthur and Linda, as they struggle with the fact of first not being able to have children, and secondly being destitute. Without spoiling the movie for those who have not seen it, there is a happy ending. Burt Bacharach's score is again heartbreaking and wonderful and the title song sung by Chris De Burgh is as good as the Chris Cross original. And finally Sir John Gielguid makes a heart breaking and beautifull return as an Obi Wan Kenobi like Hobson. A christams ghost if you will.

A Beatifull film. One ready for re-evaluation. Lets raise our glasses to Arthur and Linda.
32 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Maybe I'm crazy but I like it better that the first...
jss28014 November 2004
Certain movies you see as a child and they stick with you, regardless of actual 'quality' per se. Such is the case with Arthur 2: On the Rocks. I'll be honest, I know it's not the best of movies, but darnit, it makes me laugh. It's almost surreal to watch the non-stop one-liners out of Dudley Moore. Even characters in the movie refuse to laugh at the jokes. I still find it funny! I tried to make friends watch it, they wouldn't bite. Perhaps it's an acquired taste. I have tried to watch the first Arthur and frankly I've found it dull and uninteresting. I can't honestly say I remember the ending of the first Arthur, but I can quote whole chunks of the sequel verbatim. I don't know what that says about me as a person, but there it is. Frankly, I think this is at worst an okay movie. I think too many people came into it with too high expectations leading to a ridiculously low overall rating. If you are around 8 years old, start watching the movie over and over again and quoting it with your sister to grow the proper appreciation. Otherwise I'm not sure if you will like this movie, but I say give it a shot.
37 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
enjoyable
S_Maxwell16 August 2006
Yeah I know it's not popular to like this one. I know it's been derided for being an unnecessary sequel and that's one of the nicer criticisms. It's been called every nasty thing in the book, but now I've seen it and I'm not sure what all of the negative fuss is about. I went into Arthur 2 expecting the worst. Instead I discovered that it's actually a very lovable little film. I like the original Arthur and this sequel. My only major disappointment was that I was in the mood for a truly bad movie. Instead it turned out to be a wonderful little flick. Arthur 2 left me smiling and feeling good. I'm going to buy the DVD. Thanks Arthur!
16 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Amazingly funny movie!
rob303421 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Arthur two on the rocks is a great movie and is definitely one to watch.... it follows on from the first movie in 1981 about Arthur, a drunk millionaire. In this second movie he continues from his first role (with Liza minelli as his wife), in my opinion right from start to finish this movie is hilarious. some of the scenes and lines that he comes up with are truly brilliant. Right from the opening scene where he has a conversation with another millionaire out of the window of his car!! I really cant stop laughing. if you've "lost everything" in life this movie really gives you something to laugh at and relate to. Its a "must watch" in my opinion... and I am really sad that Dudley Moore has passed on... he was brill.
18 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
a Great feel good film with lots of laughs
mycall225 September 2002
This film is one of my all time greats, and has a feel good feeling. The relationship between Arthur and Linda is outstanding, despite their change of fortunes throughout the film. The humour in this film is similar to films like airplane, where you need to watch it several times to catch every quirk. Although Arthur plays an alcoholic, he is so likable that you cant help but feel sorry for him.
24 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
You know I like this better than the first one.
Marie-625 November 2001
To be honest, I sort of like this better then the first one! It's got some more humor to it and I think Liza Minnelli put some more effort in her role as the new Mrs. Linda Bach. At first, I think she was hesitant. She was probably thinking "This is going to be a stupid movie and the Academy is going to hate it. My fans will despise me! Why am I doing this?" And then, Liza thought, that there was this itty bitty chance that maybe her and Dudley could make the movie funny. Well, in the first one, they pulled it off. People wanted more of Arthur Bach and his hilarious antics as an alcoholic! Liza was mentally re-assured. "My fans need me for this," She must've thought. And she re appeared. In this movie, we see Arthur finally begin to GROW UP, something we never thought he could do. Linda wants a baby but Arthur's crazy fiancee and her father are at it again! It's then that Arthur realizes that he'd rather have Linda and the baby then the 75 million. Oh, and a very young Kathy Bates is in here too! This is definitely worth while. Better than the first. A 9!
23 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
He's Back!
MovieAddict201627 November 2003
"Arthur 2: On the Rocks" is the story of how Arthur (Dudley Moore), the drunken title character, loses his $750,000,000 fortune and sobers up so he can adopt a baby. It starts out very good and right on target, but towards the last 45 minutes the film loses not only all credibility, but also all sense of cohesiveness. It's as if the writer wrote himself into a wall and tried to cut through it with a spoon. I'm not sure if that analogy was any good, but it's a bit better than the end of the movie.

Of course, I haven't seen the original Oscar-winning "Arthur" (1981), which may be a part of the reason I enjoyed the first half of "Arthur 2" (1988). I still remember when I first saw "The Fly"--I had read all the positive reviews, I was really pumped up and after the credits started to roll I just sort of sat back and let out a sigh. But I had already seen its sequel, aptly named "The Fly II," and I had enjoyed it. Why? Because prior expectations can truly ruin a great movie. If I had gone into "The Fly" expecting nothing, I probably would have come out of it satisfied. But, in hindsight, I expected too much. And I hadn't expected anything going into "The Fly II," which may amount to why I prefer it to the first film, despite its goofy nature and campy effects.

Maybe that's why "Arthur 2: On the Rocks" didn't seem so bad when I watched it. I didn't find a single positive review of the film on the Internet. IMDb's average user rating is currently 3.6, and a year ago it was lower. Rotten Tomatoes' rating is 0%, with not a single positive thing to say. And I can understand why people might not like this movie, but if they think it's one of the worst films of all time...they've got another thing coming.

Arthur and his wife, Linda (Liza Minneli), are living freely. They own five homes in and around New York City, and Arthur's only worry in life is that he may get some. Linda, on the other hand, has a single worry: she can't have children, and she wants some. So they visit an adoption agency downtown, run by Mrs. Canby (Kathy Bates), who promises she'll do her best to fix them up with a kid. Joy!

But then Burt Johnson (Stephen Elliot) buys out Arthur's family company, promising to sell out if Arthur is cut off from the family fortune -- all 750,000,000 dollars. Johnson's scheming is because he wants his daughter, Susan (Cynthia Sikes), to be happy -- and she still wants to marry Arthur. If Arthur divorces his true love, Linda, and marries Johnson's snobby daughter, he can get his money back. But soon Arthur learns that money isn't the most important thing in life.

This is an interesting premise, of course, but the fact that the entire character of Arthur is one built upon the sole theory that there's nothing to worry about in life is contradictory. If "Arthur" were a television show, it would have been a decent half hour of laughs to see him hit the streets in an attempt to sober up. But as a 107-minute film, "Arthur 2's" premise just isn't "Arthur," as far as I can tell. At the end, Arthur cleans up and gets sober, and -- without spoiling how -- wins the day (like there were any doubts as to whether that would happen). But the lasting image of a sober Arthur is far from the central idea of the character in the first place.

And I must complain about something else I noticed -- something more disturbing than anything else in the film. At the very end, Kathy Bates delivers an adopted baby to the couple as they reunite on the street, only for Linda to announce on the spot that she's pregnant. Wouldn't Mrs. Canby (Bates) take the baby back and give her (the baby, that is) to a couple that can't have children? No, she just smiles and stands back from the scene. This is an example of poor scriptwriting.

"Arthur 2: On the Rocks" is a hilarious film in its first half, and a bumbling message-driven snoozer in its second. If only all comedies could sustain laughs at a steady pace throughout. I can't necessarily say that "Arthur 2" is a very bad movie, but I can't necessarily say I can recommend it, either.

2.5/5 stars.

  • John Ulmer
24 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Sobering Up.
screenman31 October 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I've given this sequel '7' because I'm a Dudley Moore fan. But really, it isn't as good as the first.

Moore's character, Arthur Bach, has made a stand and been cut off from his fortune. Indeed, his malevolent father-in-law-elect has cut him off from everything. He's unemployable, destitute and on the street.

Never having worked, he desperately attempts to secure the most menial occupation, but each time those obdurate relatives put their boot in. At one stage he is cleaning windscreens at traffic lights and finally sleeping in a hostel for the homeless.

Gielgud, as his ever-supportive butler Hobson - who died at the end of the first movie - makes cameo reappearances in ghostly form. Bach is depicted as walking and talking with him. He is only visible to Bach, who resembles any other alcoholic lost-cause conversing with invisible familiars.

This movie is darker than the first, which was more a celebration of the wealthy, drunken, playboy lifestyle. Here, he is coming to terms with his demons, in the bottle and elsewhere. At one point he elects to visit his socialite would-be wife and resolve their dilemma once and for all. But by then he has become so shabby and neglected that the doorman will not allow him entry. There is conversation: The doorman asks, 'Is she a friend of yours, sir?' Before Arthur can reply, invisible Hobson observes; 'That's a very good question, isn't it Arthur? Cuts right to the heart of the matter.'

Perhaps inevitably,there is less comedy in this movie and sometimes what there is is slightly strained. Arthur's rehabilitation pulls less laughs than his drunkenness. Even so, there's plenty of funny moments, and a fairy-book happy-ending.

Still worth a watch because the thoughtful elements make for a more in-depth character evaluation, but the first movie is the one for hilarious comedy.
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Caught between the moon and a hard place
jtpaladin10 May 2001
"Arthur 2" was definitely not as good as the first one but then again, "Arthur 2" was really the best that you could do with a sequel to the original. I mean, where do you go after the happy ending of "Arthur"?

There were some very funny lines in the film and it was nice seeing the cast re-unite, but for some reason the original Susan who was played by

Jill Eikenberry was replaced by Cynthia Sikes, who looks very different than Jill. Anyone know why the change?

Do I recommend anyone seeing this film? Only if you really enjoyed the first film otherwise you're not going to really be able to get into "Arthur 2".
12 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
A worthy sequel
ProjectorViewer21 December 2005
You may be shocked by my score but the current score is too low. People should remember this is a comedy. The acting is nowhere near as good as the first and truthfully the first is more special for many other reasons but the funny lines here never stop.

I saw this the other day again on a big screen and I stayed amused almost constantly. I don't know if this is a British thing but this is a very funny film.

I don't feel the need to explain the plot as you should know what it's about already from reading the synopsis here. The main positive of the film is the comedy.

Not only is it hugely entertaining, it is also quite touching so it's definitely a good film to watch with a partner. The negatives are the hammish acting in places which don't match up to the great comedy. The plot development obviously isn't the greatest either and it starts off fairly badly too in the opening scene where Dudley is not at his absolute best. The main flow of the film is still believable enough or it wouldn't work at all as such an endearing film.

The UK DVD is not available so I saw the R1 US version.
18 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
A Terrific Sequel to A Great Comedy Masterpiece!
Gunn1 February 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The critics panned this film as did many readers here and I can't believe they saw the same film I did. It had all the laughs and all the warmth of the original "Arthur". It was great seeing this wonderful cast again, along with some enjoyable newcomers. I've seen it about 4 or more times and its storyline is a perfect fit for a sequel. Jack Gilford as the landlord was a stitch and Stephen Elliott as Burt Johnson was a most believable and cunning adversary. And what a great premise having wealthy Arthur Bach having to eke out a living to support his pregnant wife and pay the rent for his ramshackle apartment. It matched the original "Arthur"'s charm and wit to a tee! I guess the mood you're in when you see a film can affect how you rate it.
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
It's great it's great. I just' fell out of the f*****n car. Is that the funniest thing ever? Pahhahaa!!
T.J. MEYERS17 December 2005
I played the NYC Policeman in the scene with Dudley Moore and Sir John Gielgud. Where Hobson first appears to Arthur. It was an honor to share the screen with the two of them however briefly. This also was my feature film debut. Shucks. I know it was a small speaking part but to be acting with royalty such as Sir John of all people and Dudley of course. The original Arthur movie has always been one of my favorite comedies. I knew every line of the first movie. So, naturally when my agent called and told me about how small the role would be but, I would have the chance to do the a scene with these two pros. I jumped at the chance. I auditioned for Bud Yorkin and he cast me. After all is said and done. I'm proud of the little moment I shared with Dudley's Arthur and Mr. Gielgud's Hobson. God rest both of their souls.
26 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Give this jolly film a break!
alanmuse0923 April 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I watched the first arthur about ten years ago and it's still one of my all time favorite films that i watch when ever i can, but it took me until last week to watch "on the rocks". I really don't get all the hate this film gets and why people on here say really bad things about it? OK, it doesn't have the charm depth of the first movie but it does a very good job of showing the viewer how arthur and his wife Linda ( Liza minelli) deal with life's problems without their wealth to fall on, and the fact arthur will have to handle that drinking problem now there might be a baby or two thrown into the mix.

Moore's gags are as sharp as ever and you still cant help but fall for oddball arthur. All in all i feel "on the rocks" is a very moving film indeed.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Whether this was served straight up, or on the rocks, Arthur II would have been what Arthur became in this movie. Average
callanvass16 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Arthur is still married to Linda. Linda wants a baby, but can't produce one, so they decide to adopt. Arthur's dad merges with Burt Johnson, but little does he know he's being conned, so Burt can get revenge on Arthur for leaving his daughter Susan at the altar. Arthur loses all his money, and becomes completely broke. Linda wants Arthur to start taking responsibility, and quit drinking. Arthur has trouble doing those things, and Linda leaves him

This is a pretty disappointing follow-up to such a crowd pleasing film. On a positive note I don't think it's nearly as bad as the 4.0 rating may indicate. It's never boring, and managed to keep my attention throughout. It just lacks the original's flamboyance, and flavor. Everything in this movie feels contrived. Arthur doesn't quite feel like Arthur, with an opening drunk scene that infuriated me. It ignored all the changes Arthur made in the original. Yes. His character goes through many changes, but I was still angry at that opening scene. It even goes as far to make Arthur homeless, which was really stretching it in my opinion. It became an excuse in my opinion for John Gieglund to make a cameo as a ghost (Hobson) It was great to see the cameo, but all it did was remind me of this sequel's inferiority to the original. I also balked at the notion that Burt Johnson would go to those lengths, just to get revenge. It became overly silly. It felt like they were scrambling for material at times, just to make a quick buck. Dudley Moore's charm isn't as potent as it was in the original. It's not his fault, but he doesn't have much to work with. He simply can't perform the emotional tasks that this film called for. I also didn't like the direction of his character in the first half. Liza Minelli got a razzie for her performance. While, I wouldn't say she was that bad, she definitely wasn't that great. Paul Benedict makes for a dull butler as Fairchild. I kept pining for Hobson. Kathy Bates has a small role, pre-fame. They also replaced the original Susan

Final Thoughts: I did criticize it quite a bit, but that's because the original was quite good. This was much better than I expected, but disappointing, considering what it should have been. It's much too artificial

5.1/10
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
better than the first IMO
KIEZER SOZE13 October 2010
3.9 is what this is rated get the #### out of here with that b.s score. this sequel is a lot funnier IMO every time I have watched it (5) I have laughed every time & the skeet shooting scene on the boat towards the end always makes me literally LMFAO "hit the bullet, hit the bullet" I heard RUSSEL BRAND is gonna be in a remake next year & I think he will play the part good cuz hes funny but I just hope he will be an alcoholic with endless ONE-LINERS like DUDLEY was in these ARTHUR's NICK NOLTE is gonna be the new BURT JOHNSON & thats a good cast choice I think as well but HOBSON is gonna be played by a woman I think I read which I don't think is a good change but hey what can you do. anyways thats my review & P.S this 10 lines or more thing is harder than I thought it would be (lol)
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not the disaster it's been made out to be
Wizard-89 June 2011
When it was first released, "Arthur 2: On The Rocks" got the reputation of being a big disaster, a stigma that it still has more than 20 years later. That stigma is why I put off watching it for so long, only deciding to give it a look when it appeared on free TV in my city. After watching it, I am puzzled by its reputation. To be sure, it's not as good as the first movie. It does have a number of faults with it, such as there not being any gigantic laughs, a surprisingly sedate tone for the most part, a limited amount of plot, and Minnelli disappearing for almost all of the last third of the movie. Still, the movie has some strengths. While there are no gigantic laughs, there are a good number of chuckles along the way. The cast is enthusiastic and has great chemistry with each other, and the characters (at least the ones not in the evil family that strips Arthur of his fortune) are very likable. So while the movie is no comic masterpiece, it's nothing to really be embarrassed about - it's a perfectly okay movie, especially when you consider how bad sequels usually are.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Superior sequel
Cheese Hoven23 April 2011
The original Arthur was pretty much a cartoon where there was no consequence to behaviour, so Arthur could remain permanently sozzled, drink and drive, insult people and create havoc with impunity. In Arthur 2, he enters the world of adult responsibility. I guess that it is this element of reality, the drunk as a pitiful creature, which makes fans of the original hate the sequel. Those expecting more of the same were sadly disappointed.

The premise of a man being forced to fend for himself after a lifetime of privilege is vastly more interesting to that of a drunken playboy and the film, for the most part, rises to this. The ensemble performances are much stronger than in the first film which relied heavily on acerbic one liners and Dudley's comedy drunk routine. Here the interaction between Minelli and Moore is more fleshed out and is delightful. It reminded me somewhat of Jane Fonda and Robert Redford in Barefoot in the Park. The comedy throughout is more subtle and more satisfying than the original.

Unfortunately certain cartoon elements from the first film are introduced. Moore's previously innocent ex-girlfriend turns up as a Cruella Deville character before strangely reverting to her former self at the end. And her father hounding Moore wherever he goes is rather silly, it makes him seem like Gargamel. The denouement is especially feeble, with the sudden unexplained character change just mentioned and suddenly every-thing's alright. This terrible finale is the reason I cannot give this a higher mark, although I do consider it a genuine improvement on Arthur 1.

It is a pity that this, even more than the original did not follow the courage of its convictions and end with him being poor but following his heart. Now that would be a lesson worth learning.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
No Money Somehow Still Funny
funky_cherry8623 March 2011
I saw this film a few years ago and wondered why would anyone hate this film and give it such a bad review?, Arthur 2 On The Rocks was a decent conclusion to the story of the most lovable millionaire.Liza Minnelli's performance as Linda was as usual terrific and comical, While watching the movie you get to feel for the main characters as they face being broke,trying to fix an apartment and have children. I loved Dudley Moore's role as Arthur as you see him finally facing life and most of all realizing that having money isn't everything.

Since we last saw Arthur (Moore) he was on the verge of an arranged marriage to socialite Susan Johnson (Sikes) however he chose to marry his true love and keep his money.It's a few years later Arthur & his lovely wife Linda (Minnelli) are as happy as ever. When it's discovered that Linda can't have children they plan to adopt with the help of Mrs. Canby (Bates) an adoption worker. However a dark cloud soon comes around.

Burt Johnson (Elliott) has seized control of the Bach company and as part of a revenge scheme forces Arthur's family to cut him off financially unless he divorces his wife and marries Susan. This film had taken a serious turn for Arthur as he finally decided to sober up and fight back to get his family and what belongs to him. I won't spoil the ending all I can tell you is that it's a happy one.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Not as good as the first, but better than its reputation
TheLittleSongbird16 April 2011
The first Arthur is a very funny and very charming movie, if not quite classic status. This sequel gets a lot of flack, and while it is inferior it is better than its dubious reputation. I agree the plot is rather weak this time around, complete with a very predictable ending. Some of the script and jokes are hit and miss, the jokes about the drunkeness of Arthur were better than the ones about the rehabilitation, and the pace slackens in the second half. John Gielgud does do with what he can, which is still very enjoyable, but his material isn't as acidic or as droll, which was a disappointment seeing as that made his performance in the original even more enjoyable. However, there are many entertaining parts to make up for the misses as well as some touching parts with Arthur and Hobson, the film still looks great, and if I noticed two improvements I'd say Arthur is more likable here with some fun one-liners and the first half is slicker than that of the first's. The performances are fine, Dudley Moore and Liza Minnelli show good chemistry and are fun to watch, and John Gielgud and Kathy Bates do what they can. All in all, a decent sequel and better than it's made out to be. 6/10 Bethany Cox
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
"She should be embarrassed. Did you see Arthur 2?"
mark.waltz19 January 2014
Warning: Spoilers
So said Estelle Getty on an episode of "Golden Girls" when Bea Arthur makes a comment on Liza Minnelli's stint in rehab. In retrospect, the film is certainly not as bad as the critics said it was, and while a sequel may not have been necessary, it was certainly more welcome than the wretched re-make of the original. In fact, the sequel gives Liza more to do than the first one, since John Gielgud's Hobson is now relegated to a ghostly appearance to show Dudley Moore's title character what he was missing in a sort of "It's a Wonderful Life" spoof.

Ironically, "Golden Girls" featured two appearances by the legendary Geraldine Fitzgerald, repeating her role here as Arthur's matronly grandmother, and also getting more to do. Liza takes on an interesting comparison to her own life, playing a woman unable to have her own child, and trying to find a baby to adopt. The main plot about Arthur's ex-fiancée's father going out of his way to bankrupt him in revenge is the only weak point, but that is overshadowed by the heart and soul of Moore and Minnelli's romance. So give this one a chance. You may not come out of it singing about the moon and New York City, but you won't be declaring it "Ishtar" either.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
One of the Worst Sequels -- Ever
brucetsmith20 August 2011
Sequels are difficult. In many cases, it's just impossible to catch the lightning in the bottle the second time, no matter how hard they try. In this case, it looked like they plain flat mailed it in, hoping that everyone who loved the original Arthur would flock to the theaters to see this mess. The only motivation I could see for this movie was to make more money. Every aspect of the film was embarrassingly bad. We watched the 2011 Arthur (quite good in its own interpretation of the story), the original Arthur, and then this during one sitting. This was so bad we couldn't finish the viewing. Obviously money can be more important than pride.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Pointless sequel that has a few good laughs and good performances
Kenneth-821 January 2000
I agree with all of the other comments that the original Arthur was not a movie that needed a sequel. It should have stayed exactly where it ended. But, taken on it's own terms, Arthur 2: On the Rocks isn't half bad and actually has some really funny moments. Dudley Moore and Liza Minnelli convincingly reprise their roles from the original and exchange some really funny lines between each other; they work well together and are fun to watch. All of the other actors also, from the original (minus Jill Eikenberry), do their best to add spark to offset the mediocre material. In fact the movie gets as far as it does solely on the performances alone. The movie itself is bland and lifelessly plotted and totally lacking in the warmth, magic, and style, courtesy of the late Steve Gordon, that made the original so much fun and endearing. Plus the new plot plays more like a sitcom than pure comedy. But the stars manage to squeeze out a few laughs anyway and Moore still gets some belly laughs as the perpetually drunk Arthur. So if your looking for a sequel that is on par with the original you will no doubt be disappointed but if your just looking for an average comedy with a few good laughs to kill time with you might enjoy it.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Ah What A Shame
statuskuo9 September 2014
I honestly wanted to like this movie so much. Because the original had so much charm and wit and it took you by surprise. In this flat, lifeless, darker sequel, you see the fun slowly fade into what could've been.

I'm not going to give you the plot other than they really had to find a way to get Arthur back on the wagon, then off then find the new step to "growing up." This is the point of the first one. In this one, it does become the next logical step. HOWEVER, digging deep for a villain, we're re-introduced to a familiar family. The Johnsons. Who, after over 5 years, still dwell on the pain which is Arthur escaping their clutches. I will never understand then (from the 1st Arthur) from this one, why they chose the most beautiful WASPy girl, clear beauty queens to fawn over Dudley Moore, other than it makes for good comedy (or a better contrast to Minelli). But I felt they swung a little too far having Cynthia Sikes be enamored with the over- aged, too short Moore, who offers, nothing to the table. I can see that this is a dilemma to most people. The original story wasn't about his relationship to Minelli. It actually was about him and Gielgud. A man-child who finally confronts serious issues and grows up. There is no sequel here. Other then for money people to break him down again, to build him back up, to use in name only "Arthur."

You know a movie is in trouble when you rely on ghosts of movies past to present exposition.

Anyway, they really missed the boat (if they really wanted to make a sequel). This was a cheerless unhappy viewing of a train wreck. What a shame.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Arthur 2: The Search for More Money
tex-429 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Simply said, this is a movie that does not need to exist. The plot line is simple, Burt Johnson, still feeling stung by Arthur Bach after the first film, and at the request of his daughter, Susan, buys out the Bach family corporation and forces the family to cut Arthur off unless he marries Susan. The idea is that Arthur will dump Linda and marry Susan once he realizes that he cannot live if he is poor. A subplot to this is that Arthur and Linda are trying to adopt a child. No explanation is given as to why Susan so desperately wants to be with Arthur after being humiliated by him in the first film, or why anyone would consider such an obvious alcoholic like Arthur to be a suitable adoptive parent.

While Minelli and Moore have a great chemistry, the movie itself is boring. What was somewhat cute in the first film is simply tiring and obnoxious the second time around.
6 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews