Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

One of my all time favorites.

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

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.

I saw the original film in the cinema when it first came out, coincidentally with a girlfriend who looked not unlike Liza Minnelli. We both loved it. The script was well written and it had a good plot. I've just watched the sequel 22 years after it was made. The writing is as good as it could be and easily as good as in the original but so much more could have been made of the plot. Any character who can be as funny and talented as "Arthur" should be able to get a job doing stand-up or playing the piano in a nightclub to earn a living. At one point in the film I thought that was the way it was going but then, what a disappointment. Arthur simply finds a way to get his paws back on his inheritance and it all ends "happily ever after". What a let down. I've given this 5 stars because Dudley Moore is always worth watching and also because the writers knew what they were doing. It doesn't deserve any more than that because it is pure pap and so obviously capitalises on the success of the first film; it is banal in comparison.

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!

So (Arthur - 1981) was a nice movie which had a lot of reasons that made it a classic (fine stars with fine acting, simple script, good comedy, impressive theme song,…). Plus how it succeeded scrumptiously also, to become one of the 1980s' big hits; and that's, regrettably, one main reason for the sin it left 7 years later ! They wanted to exploit that massive success (naturally), save (Dudley Moore) from some not-very-good movies he was in (sadly), and delude the poor audience as well as the fans of the first movie with that big vacuum (effectively !) It's surely not a decent sequel for such a character, despite its smart idea which had been handled stupidly. In fact, to put that forever brat drunk millionaire into sudden poverty is one heck of a talented irony, but they didn't go much, or at all, with that.It's not a whole movie, since the journey of the hero is so idiot and incomplete with nearly nothing to do along the way, totally nothing to change in him, and with his fortune comes back to him easily and provocatively in the end !!Not to mention the bad feeling it causes about the original movie, since Arthur is still the same alcoholic lost, and how his wonderful love story with (Linda /Liza Minnelli) didn't serve him right (Good punch for all the happy endings I suppose !).There is naught to make you laugh or enjoy. Actually some situations, such as cleaning the cars' glass, almost approached it to the threshold of the painful tragedy ! As odd as it may seem, there isn't anything here to be watched. Everything seemed out of gloss. It has strange sense of laziness all over it. The script miscarried any try to make thrilling time, touching moments, some comedy (or even situations to make comedy !). For instance, look at another movie with nearly the same plot (Mel Brocks' Life Stinks - 1991) and to where it went with its idea. With or without comparison, (Arthur 2) looked Like a TV program about anticipated sequel more than a real one.However, I must admire : (John Gielgud) in his sublime cameo, a few of (Moore)'s lines (appeared like his personal diligence), "Love Is My Decision" the theme song, and the father-in-law cries his eyes out; that was extremely funny yet so fast; like the way of writing this empty false comedy. It looked written by Arthur himself, as a spoiled person who doesn't want to fatigue himself at all.A good example of a flop that didn't attempt anything but being one.