Arthur 2: On the Rocks

A mildly entertaining yet utterly needless sequel, Arthur 2: On the Rocks picks up several years after the events of the first film and follows Dudley Moore’s Arthur as he’s forced to cope with the loss of his substantial fortune – with the situation compounded by the fact that he and Linda (Liza Minnelli) are attempting to adopt a baby. Arthur 2: On the Rocks, right off the bat, establishes itself as a rather redundant and downright desperate followup, as the movie stretches the limits of credibility right from the get-go with the revelation that Arthur is still drinking (ie wouldn’t Linda have forced him to quit a long time ago?) It’s a testament to both Moore and Minnelli’s charismatic work that the film remains relatively watchable throughout, although there’s little doubt that the movie grows more and more sluggish as it progresses – as scripter Andy Breckman begins emphasizing plot developments of an increasingly outlandish and downright tedious nature (ie Arthur becomes a hobo). The film’s pervasively ill-conceived atmosphere finally reaches its breaking point as Arthur encounters the ghost of John Gielgud’s Hobson, with the admitted chemistry between Moore and Gielgud’s respective characters simply unable to compensate for the ridiculousness of this absurd twist. It is, as a result, impossible to label Arthur 2: On the Rocks as anything more than a cynical effort to cash in on the original’s success, and it’s ultimately not difficult to see why the movie is now considered one of the most underwhelming sequels in cinematic history.

** out of ****