Ceticultsot Beautiful, moving film.

Bereamic Awesome Movie

Stephanie There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

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

pete-laidler 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.

S_Maxwell Yeah I know it's not popular to like this one. I know it's been derided for being an unnecessary sequel and that's one of the nicer criticisms. It's been called every nasty thing in the book, but now I've seen it and I'm not sure what all of the negative fuss is about. I went into Arthur 2 expecting the worst. Instead I discovered that it's actually a very lovable little film. I like the original Arthur and this sequel. My only major disappointment was that I was in the mood for a truly bad movie. Instead it turned out to be a wonderful little flick. Arthur 2 left me smiling and feeling good. I'm going to buy the DVD. Thanks Arthur!

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.