Arthur, o Milionário Arruinado

"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".

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.

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.

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.

"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.