Sequels are difficult. In many cases, it's just impossible to catch the lightning in the bottle the second time, no matter how hard they try. In this case, it looked like they plain flat mailed it in, hoping that everyone who loved the original Arthur would flock to the theaters to see this mess. The only motivation I could see for this movie was to make more money. Every aspect of the film was embarrassingly bad. We watched the 2011 Arthur (quite good in its own interpretation of the story), the original Arthur, and then this during one sitting. This was so bad we couldn't finish the viewing. Obviously money can be more important than pride.

The original Arthur was pretty much a cartoon where there was no consequence to behaviour, so Arthur could remain permanently sozzled, drink and drive, insult people and create havoc with impunity. In Arthur 2, he enters the world of adult responsibility. I guess that it is this element of reality, the drunk as a pitiful creature, which makes fans of the original hate the sequel. Those expecting more of the same were sadly disappointed. The premise of a man being forced to fend for himself after a lifetime of privilege is vastly more interesting to that of a drunken playboy and the film, for the most part, rises to this. The ensemble performances are much stronger than in the first film which relied heavily on acerbic one liners and Dudley's comedy drunk routine. Here the interaction between Minelli and Moore is more fleshed out and is delightful. It reminded me somewhat of Jane Fonda and Robert Redford in Barefoot in the Park. The comedy throughout is more subtle and more satisfying than the original. Unfortunately certain cartoon elements from the first film are introduced. Moore's previously innocent ex-girlfriend turns up as a Cruella Deville character before strangely reverting to her former self at the end. And her father hounding Moore wherever he goes is rather silly, it makes him seem like Gargamel. The denouement is especially feeble, with the sudden unexplained character change just mentioned and suddenly every-thing's alright. This terrible finale is the reason I cannot give this a higher mark, although I do consider it a genuine improvement on Arthur 1.It is a pity that this, even more than the original did not follow the courage of its convictions and end with him being poor but following his heart. Now that would be a lesson worth learning.

So (Arthur - 1981) was a nice movie which had a lot of reasons that made it a classic (fine stars with fine acting, simple script, good comedy, impressive theme song,…). Plus how it succeeded scrumptiously also, to become one of the 1980s' big hits; and that's, regrettably, one main reason for the sin it left 7 years later ! They wanted to exploit that massive success (naturally), save (Dudley Moore) from some not-very-good movies he was in (sadly), and delude the poor audience as well as the fans of the first movie with that big vacuum (effectively !) It's surely not a decent sequel for such a character, despite its smart idea which had been handled stupidly. In fact, to put that forever brat drunk millionaire into sudden poverty is one heck of a talented irony, but they didn't go much, or at all, with that.It's not a whole movie, since the journey of the hero is so idiot and incomplete with nearly nothing to do along the way, totally nothing to change in him, and with his fortune comes back to him easily and provocatively in the end !!Not to mention the bad feeling it causes about the original movie, since Arthur is still the same alcoholic lost, and how his wonderful love story with (Linda /Liza Minnelli) didn't serve him right (Good punch for all the happy endings I suppose !).There is naught to make you laugh or enjoy. Actually some situations, such as cleaning the cars' glass, almost approached it to the threshold of the painful tragedy ! As odd as it may seem, there isn't anything here to be watched. Everything seemed out of gloss. It has strange sense of laziness all over it. The script miscarried any try to make thrilling time, touching moments, some comedy (or even situations to make comedy !). For instance, look at another movie with nearly the same plot (Mel Brocks' Life Stinks - 1991) and to where it went with its idea. With or without comparison, (Arthur 2) looked Like a TV program about anticipated sequel more than a real one.However, I must admire : (John Gielgud) in his sublime cameo, a few of (Moore)'s lines (appeared like his personal diligence), "Love Is My Decision" the theme song, and the father-in-law cries his eyes out; that was extremely funny yet so fast; like the way of writing this empty false comedy. It looked written by Arthur himself, as a spoiled person who doesn't want to fatigue himself at all.A good example of a flop that didn't attempt anything but being one.

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!