callanvass Arthur is still married to Linda. Linda wants a baby, but can't produce one, so they decide to adopt. Arthur's dad merges with Burt Johnson, but little does he know he's being conned, so Burt can get revenge on Arthur for leaving his daughter Susan at the altar. Arthur loses all his money, and becomes completely broke. Linda wants Arthur to start taking responsibility, and quit drinking. Arthur has trouble doing those things, and Linda leaves himThis is a pretty disappointing follow-up to such a crowd pleasing film. On a positive note I don't think it's nearly as bad as the 4.0 rating may indicate. It's never boring, and managed to keep my attention throughout. It just lacks the original's flamboyance, and flavor. Everything in this movie feels contrived. Arthur doesn't quite feel like Arthur, with an opening drunk scene that infuriated me. It ignored all the changes Arthur made in the original. Yes. His character goes through many changes, but I was still angry at that opening scene. It even goes as far to make Arthur homeless, which was really stretching it in my opinion. It became an excuse in my opinion for John Gieglund to make a cameo as a ghost (Hobson) It was great to see the cameo, but all it did was remind me of this sequel's inferiority to the original. I also balked at the notion that Burt Johnson would go to those lengths, just to get revenge. It became overly silly. It felt like they were scrambling for material at times, just to make a quick buck. Dudley Moore's charm isn't as potent as it was in the original. It's not his fault, but he doesn't have much to work with. He simply can't perform the emotional tasks that this film called for. I also didn't like the direction of his character in the first half. Liza Minelli got a razzie for her performance. While, I wouldn't say she was that bad, she definitely wasn't that great. Paul Benedict makes for a dull butler as Fairchild. I kept pining for Hobson. Kathy Bates has a small role, pre-fame. They also replaced the original SusanFinal Thoughts: I did criticize it quite a bit, but that's because the original was quite good. This was much better than I expected, but disappointing, considering what it should have been. It's much too artificial5.1/10

TheLittleSongbird 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

Jackson Booth-Millard 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!

huntertristan Arthur 2 on the rocks is remembered by many as possibly the worst film of the entire 1980s. Perhaps it could claim the title of worst film ever made? What I do know for sure is that Arthur 2 on the rocks is a poorly conceived, written, and preformed shadow of a film that deserves no credit or respect. The fact that people on this board would actually believe this film should be rated above 1 star reflects badly on their ability to honestly critique a motion picture.Arthur 2 on the rocks was garbage when I was watched it as a ten year old, and nothing has redeemed it now that I am an adult 20 years later.Avoid.