User Reviews

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.

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

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.

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.

Had this sequel to 1981's "Arthur" been made immediately following that film's surprise success, maybe audiences would've been interested. Maybe Dudley Moore wouldn't look so stung by the career-bombs he endured throughout the 1980s. Alas, the biggest problem with this draggy, silly comedy is the absence of Steve Gordon, who wrote and directed the original and died shortly thereafter. This film has none of nuances of the first, none of the laughs or warmth, yet it does retain the forced drunken humor of its title character--and this in itself looked really out of place in sober 1988. What a shame, nearly everyone is here (including John Gielgud in a cameo), but it just doesn't pass. Blame it on a leaden script, a direction with no bounce, and too much time under the bridge for anyone to care anymore. *1/2 from ****

Arthur 2 (1988) was just shameful. Why was this movie ever made? I know it was the 80's and it was filled with unnecessary and unwanted sequels to films. This was the prime example. It was d.o.a. at the box office and nobody cared about it when it hit the video shelves. Today it exists as a joke to movie viewers. The coke must have been flowing when this idea was pitched. Honestly, did anyone think that this would be a hit? Nobody thinks chronic drunks are funny anymore and Arthur is a mess. Before Dudley Moore died I was hoping for another sequel. Like Arthur 3:The Rehab or Arthur 3: The Liver Transplant or Arthur 3: The DTs.

Not recommended.

"Arthur 2: On the Rocks" isn't very good. It has quite a few nice moments but it also has some pretty bad parts too. A big problem is the Arthur character. He's often (especially in the first half of the movie) more obnoxious than funny. The story also doesn't work that well. The cast does a nice job (for the most part) but the material is just not there. "Arthur 2: On the Rocks" was released seven years after the original "Arthur" but it seems more like twenty.

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.

"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

There's an early scene in ARTHUR 2 ON THE ROCKS that sums up this movie . It's the scene where Arthur taps on a fellow millionaires car window to be told " You're an annoying little man " . Couldn't have said it better myself sir . Annoying , that's the word and that's the whole film - Annoying

Some people may say that's the whole point of Arthur Bach , he's supposed to be annoying and I'm not disputing any of this , my beef is not the way that he's written but by the irritating manner he's played by Dudley Moore who also executively produced ( Usually the sign of a bad movie when the executive producer and star are the same person ) this unentertaining sequel . Moore plays Arthur to the hilt and goes way over the top and never missing an opportunity to tell the audience that this guy's a drunk who thinks he's funny , and there's nothing less funny than someone who thinks he is . Portraying a drunken character is never easy at the best of times and Moore totally fails in his attempts

He's not helped by the script though which has one of those premises that has a good idea but doesn't seem to be well developed at all : Arthur and his wife are trying to adopt a baby after falling upon hard times so Arthur must stop drinking and get a job . It's the kind of idea that personifies good drama of the main protagonist being split between need and desire ie Arthur must needs to stop drinking in order to achieve a better life but he desires to carry on drinking . Unfortunately the drama never really surfaces and the audience are mistreated to numerous scenes of Arthur telling unfunny jokes to the people he meets which doesn't make for a good film

"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".

Its not funny, clever, or anywhere near as entertaining as the first. Just a pure waste of time. 2 out of 10.

This film is terrible. It is an insult to the original.

It is ill-conceived, poorly written, and poorly acted. It violates the original by being trite and unhumorous. It is mean spirited.

It wouldn't know subtle if it hit it on the head. It should be destroyed and never played again. The characters are overblown and not believable.

John Gielgud does the only redeeming acting in the entire film.

The treatment of Fairchild that is supposed to be dramatic is just insultingly cruel.

This film totally misses the mark on every count, and should be burned.

I'd see Liza in anything, but "Arthur" was really a project that did NOT need a sequel. Everything fresh and amusing in the original seems tired and even desperate here, although the cast is game and there are a few funny lines sprinkled throughout. Overall, however, the script is a plodding, mannered bore.

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.

Arthur 2 on the rocks is remembered by many as possibly the worst film of the entire 1980s. Perhaps it could claim the title of worst film ever made? What I do know for sure is that Arthur 2 on the rocks is a poorly conceived, written, and preformed shadow of a film that deserves no credit or respect. The fact that people on this board would actually believe this film should be rated above 1 star reflects badly on their ability to honestly critique a motion picture.

Arthur 2 on the rocks was garbage when I was watched it as a ten year old, and nothing has redeemed it now that I am an adult 20 years later.

Avoid.

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.

I find the arthur films very funny indeed and they leave u with a warm feeling inside. Sadly when i watch the arthur movies these days i have a slight tear in my eye knowing that dudley moore passed away at a fairly young age of 66 in 2002. A very funny guy and starred in two arthur movies which are Great and underrated.

The film, though I love Dudley Moore as a comic genius (god rest his soul) and love seeing him play the hilarious drunk in the original cannot abide this film. It is stupid from the outset. The fact that Arthur is a drunk means that he is unable to commit to a full time loving relationship even though he is a romantic at heart and the most lovable drunk of all. The first film shows us that he can't find love at the end of the night because he is funny, lovable but ultimately a shameless rich playboy. Having him act drunk while MARRIED and IN LOVE with someone negates the comic preface of the first movie (lets face it there should only have been one), confuses any sense of filmic reality and makes a mockery of the fantastic genius of the original Arthur. I take my hat and anything else I can find off to the writers, producers, and director of the first movie whilst simultaneously defecating on the script and printed out name of the man who green-lighted the sequel. Arthur 2 is a stupid film with a terrible script, pace, and and and and and you should avoid it at all costs.

RIP Dudley Moore, and long live the original "Arthur", the best film ever shot in New York.

Seth Hesio (on behalf of Stuart Rouse)