Arthur 2: On the Rocks (1988)

What a beautiful movie!

Sadly Over-hyped

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

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.

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.

It was only when I watched Arthur on TV, and it was followed soon after by the sequel that I found out it had one, so I decided to see why it was rated one star. You remember Arthur Bach (Dudley Moore), the drunk millionaire, well, he's now married to true love Linda Marolla (Razzie winning Liza Minnelli), but he loses his whole $750,000,000 fortune when his former to-be father in law Burt Johnson (Stephen Elliott) takes control of his empire. Arthur and Linda are now broke and homeless, and just when they planned to adopt a child (Linda can't give birth) with the help of Mrs. Canby (Kathy Bates), so Arthur needs to sober up and get a job. After getting some advice from the ghost of his sarcastic dead butler Hobson (Sir John Gielgud), and Linda disappears for a little while Arthur tries to find out the reason behind losing his fortune. In the end, it turns out Johnson committed fraud, so the fortune is returned, and Arthur and Linda get their adopted child and a happy ending. Also starring Geraldine Fitzgerald as Martha Bach, Paul Benedict as Fairchild, Cynthia Sikes (replacing Jill Eikenberry) as Susan Johnson, Jack Gilford as Mr. Butterworth and Ted Ross as Bitterman. I can understand the makers having the wanting a child plot line, and fans of the original may appreciate Gielgud's cameo return, but there is nothing good to say about the unnecessary, boring and utterly awful sequel to a great comedy original, it's a complete waste of time. Poor!

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.