VividSimon Simply Perfect

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Kimball Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

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.

moonspinner55 Had this sequel to 1981's "Arthur" been made immediately following that film's surprise success, maybe audiences would've been interested. Maybe Dudley Moore wouldn't look so stung by the career-bombs he endured throughout the 1980s. Alas, the biggest problem with this draggy, silly comedy is the absence of Steve Gordon, who wrote and directed the original and died shortly thereafter. This film has none of nuances of the first, none of the laughs or warmth, yet it does retain the forced drunken humor of its title character--and this in itself looked really out of place in sober 1988. What a shame, nearly everyone is here (including John Gielgud in a cameo), but it just doesn't pass. Blame it on a leaden script, a direction with no bounce, and too much time under the bridge for anyone to care anymore. *1/2 from ****