Arthur 2: On the Rocks
Arthur 2: On the Rocks
PG | 08 July 1988 (USA)
Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream thousands of hit movies and TV shows

Start 30-day Free Trial
Arthur 2: On the Rocks Trailers View All

Arthur loses his fortune for staying with Linda, right as the two were preparing to adopt a child. As their marriage suffers, Arthur plans for a way to get his money back, but first he must sober up and get a real job.

Reviews
Incannerax

What a waste of my time!!!

ThiefHott

Too much of everything

Skyler

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

View More
Jerrie

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

View More
missundaztood9

This was largely panned when it came out and was a flop at the box office, but it is a decent sequel and another feelgood film, just like the first one. My advice is to just watch it and enjoy it, and to not listen to any negative reviews about it.

View More
statuskuo

I honestly wanted to like this movie so much. Because the original had so much charm and wit and it took you by surprise. In this flat, lifeless, darker sequel, you see the fun slowly fade into what could've been.I'm not going to give you the plot other than they really had to find a way to get Arthur back on the wagon, then off then find the new step to "growing up." This is the point of the first one. In this one, it does become the next logical step. HOWEVER, digging deep for a villain, we're re-introduced to a familiar family. The Johnsons. Who, after over 5 years, still dwell on the pain which is Arthur escaping their clutches. I will never understand then (from the 1st Arthur) from this one, why they chose the most beautiful WASPy girl, clear beauty queens to fawn over Dudley Moore, other than it makes for good comedy (or a better contrast to Minelli). But I felt they swung a little too far having Cynthia Sikes be enamored with the over- aged, too short Moore, who offers, nothing to the table. I can see that this is a dilemma to most people. The original story wasn't about his relationship to Minelli. It actually was about him and Gielgud. A man-child who finally confronts serious issues and grows up. There is no sequel here. Other then for money people to break him down again, to build him back up, to use in name only "Arthur."You know a movie is in trouble when you rely on ghosts of movies past to present exposition. Anyway, they really missed the boat (if they really wanted to make a sequel). This was a cheerless unhappy viewing of a train wreck. What a shame.

View More
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

View More
tex-42

Simply said, this is a movie that does not need to exist. The plot line is simple, Burt Johnson, still feeling stung by Arthur Bach after the first film, and at the request of his daughter, Susan, buys out the Bach family corporation and forces the family to cut Arthur off unless he marries Susan. The idea is that Arthur will dump Linda and marry Susan once he realizes that he cannot live if he is poor. A subplot to this is that Arthur and Linda are trying to adopt a child. No explanation is given as to why Susan so desperately wants to be with Arthur after being humiliated by him in the first film, or why anyone would consider such an obvious alcoholic like Arthur to be a suitable adoptive parent.While Minelli and Moore have a great chemistry, the movie itself is boring. What was somewhat cute in the first film is simply tiring and obnoxious the second time around.

View More