IMDb > Arthur 2: On the Rocks (1988) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Arthur 2: On the Rocks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Arthur 2: On the Rocks More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]
Index 42 reviews in total 

33 out of 39 people found the following review useful:

harmless fun and very touching

Author: lotsafun from Angel City
11 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

31 out of 37 people found the following review useful:

A beautiful little film.

Author: Tom Bixby ( from Caught between the moon and New york City
21 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

35 out of 45 people found the following review useful:

Maybe I'm crazy but I like it better that the first...

Author: John Sheehan ( from Tulsa, OK
14 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

23 out of 29 people found the following review useful:

a Great feel good film with lots of laughs

Author: mycall2
25 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

24 out of 32 people found the following review useful:

He's Back!

Author: MovieAddict2016 from UK
27 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

Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

Amazingly funny movie!

Author: rob3034 from United Kingdom
21 November 2005

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

22 out of 30 people found the following review useful:

You know I like this better than the first one.

Author: Marie-62 from xxxx
5 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!

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 16 people found the following review useful:


Author: S_Maxwell from United States
16 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!

Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 24 people found the following review useful:

A worthy sequel

Author: ProjectorViewer from United Kingdom
21 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

23 out of 36 people found the following review useful:

It's great it's great. I just' fell out of the f*****n car. Is that the funniest thing ever? Pahhahaa!!

Author: T.J. MEYERS ( from Las Vegas - NYC
17 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
Newsgroup reviews External reviews Parents Guide
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history