Arthur 2: On the Rocks Reviews

Page 1 of 6
Super Reviewer
July 29, 2012
Not so bad like everybody say, Arthur 2 is very inferior from the 1981 hit. At least Dudley Moore, with luck and funny charm save this sequel.
Super Reviewer
January 8, 2007
A ok film with some funny moments.
Super Reviewer
August 2, 2008
Lightning doesn't strike twice as this sequel falls completely flat on its face. A lot of the same from the first movie, but somewhat different in tone. Even Geilgud's ghostly appearance in this movie can't save this film. But I enjoyed it.
Super Reviewer
September 9, 2007
Not all that great. It tries really hard to capture the magic of the first one but really doesn't make it.
Super Reviewer
March 14, 2007
Dud tries to recreate his only decent film by doing his tiresome comedy drunk schtick again, but realises John Gielgud was the only funny one in it, and he's dead. Which leaves Liza Minelli to save the day. All hands abandon ship...
½ July 30, 2008
This abysmal sequel to the sometimes funny original is like the hangover after a party, as Moore and Minelli seem more interested in complainging than being funny, like a married couple that doesn't want to be married anymore. Yawn.
May 29, 2007
Dudley Moore is the perfect pointless rich man with nothing better to do than get drunk. He made these movies worth watching!
April 20, 2007
Okay so some of you are thinking, "Come on!". Au contraire, this movie is hillarious and witty. No questions asked one of my all time favorites. Give it a chance.
½ December 13, 2014
Why did they have to piss on a classic?????
½ December 18, 2013
Dudley Moore's charms have all dried up by Arthur 2: On the Rocks, and by this point his performance is merely a rehash and nothing more than just the dying spirit of the great character Arthur once was as he gradually dies in this sequel.
Arthur 2: On the Rocks suffers the same way that all sequels tend to: its crap. It could have taken its decent premise in the right direction but it didn't. It just flooded the film with flat and unoriginal jokes, as well as a distinct lack of direction from Bud Yorkin who clearly is an inexperienced filmmaker that can't realise a poor quality script even when Andy Breckman dangled it right in front of him, and so as he tries to piece together what he can from the lack of jokes and poor storytelling, but cannot. He cannot because he doesn't know a thing about directing a film, and he is working with crappy sequel material.
Alfie 2: On the Rocks is painfully unfunny and boring to watch, and reminds us that all good things must come to an end, such as Dudley Moore's career which died out in the years following this abysmal and laugh-free comedy.
Liza Minelli's excessive energy gets tiring extremely fast because she's excessively optimistic for a person who can't have a child and just lost $750,000,000. And its not even funny. And since Arthur 2: On the Rocks is supposedly a comedy, this is a serious problem. Liza Minelli is a problem in Arthur 2: On the Rocks, and her performance is a monotonous and excessively energetic one which drags down the tone of the film when it could have been moving.
Really, Arhur 2: On the Rocks is more of a joke than any of the jokes in the film, and finding them is more difficult than finding the loch ness monster. But don't even bother trying if you liked the first Arthur, because this laugh free sequel is depressingly dull.
June 5, 2011
What a train wreck. It was nice to see Sir John Gielgud's face, but I had to fast-forward through the movie to get there, because it was painfully unfunny. Avoid this like the plague unless you can get it free on demand.
January 4, 2013
Dudley Moore disowned this film for a very good reason.
Super Reviewer
July 29, 2012
Not so bad like everybody say, Arthur 2 is very inferior from the 1981 hit. At least Dudley Moore, with luck and funny charm save this sequel.
November 16, 2011
Ties in great with the first movie in my opinion.
Super Reviewer
April 3, 2011
First of all, making a sequel to a movie like "Arthur" is an absolutely horrendous idea and whoever came up with it should walk to his grave. Second of all, from all of the negative reception for this movie, why should I even bother seeing it? It is probably as bad as everyone says it is. This also brings me to the topic of the remake, or reboot. Why? Just stop making sequels to good movies unless you can do it right hollywood, and STOP making HORRIBLE REMAKES! Nuff said.
½ June 17, 2010
(**): Thumbs Down

It just is not as funny as the first film. Fair at best.
Page 1 of 6