Arthur, o Milionário Arruinado

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.

"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".

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 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.

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