juanmuscle
Sometimes lightning Does strike twice. And watching this lil' darling not only hearkens one back to that magical place twixt a lil' gibbous moon and a lil' suburb across town. I just have to say, how much fun can someone have watching something so delightful? I don't know, but I sure did enjoy myself, heck, I didn't even know the thing existed until now! But somethings are worth the wait. But I have to say, I did go into this like I'm sure so many others with terrible misgivings for its masterful predecessor we all hold so close to our lil' hearts, in a lil' special place, that lil' cubbyhole in which we are certain we are the only ones who can see the inner magic in a film we love Oh! so very much.... And going another round with these magical actors and a really neat script, well the best that we can do is fall in love Again! God what a fun time, the only thing is I would have kept the magical song from the first one. In fact, do what I did, as soon as its over play it over and over and just feel lucky, when a diamond comes your way one more time. If it was up to me, I would of made one of these with the same thespians every single year until death do us part, even if they can't find any conflict to overcome or hurdles to surmount, just a good ol' romp with these characters, especially that super cool angry old codger is more than I could ever need! Only in film can one really really love the biggest Hater in the world! hahahhaa... Charming! Thank you, we love you Dudley, super talent you are an angel.
Wizard-8
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.
funky_cherry86
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.
screenman
I've given this sequel '7' because I'm a Dudley Moore fan. But really, it isn't as good as the first.Moore's character, Arthur Bach, has made a stand and been cut off from his fortune. Indeed, his malevolent father-in-law-elect has cut him off from everything. He's unemployable, destitute and on the street.Never having worked, he desperately attempts to secure the most menial occupation, but each time those obdurate relatives put their boot in. At one stage he is cleaning windscreens at traffic lights and finally sleeping in a hostel for the homeless.Gielgud, as his ever-supportive butler Hobson - who died at the end of the first movie - makes cameo reappearances in ghostly form. Bach is depicted as walking and talking with him. He is only visible to Bach, who resembles any other alcoholic lost-cause conversing with invisible familiars.This movie is darker than the first, which was more a celebration of the wealthy, drunken, playboy lifestyle. Here, he is coming to terms with his demons, in the bottle and elsewhere. At one point he elects to visit his socialite would-be wife and resolve their dilemma once and for all. But by then he has become so shabby and neglected that the doorman will not allow him entry. There is conversation: The doorman asks, 'Is she a friend of yours, sir?' Before Arthur can reply, invisible Hobson observes; 'That's a very good question, isn't it Arthur? Cuts right to the heart of the matter.' Perhaps inevitably,there is less comedy in this movie and sometimes what there is is slightly strained. Arthur's rehabilitation pulls less laughs than his drunkenness. Even so, there's plenty of funny moments, and a fairy-book happy-ending.Still worth a watch because the thoughtful elements make for a more in-depth character evaluation, but the first movie is the one for hilarious comedy.
AD
