Arthur, o Milionário Arruinado

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

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 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.

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: 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