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.

I watched the first arthur about ten years ago and it's still one of my all time favorite films that i watch when ever i can, but it took me until last week to watch "on the rocks". I really don't get all the hate this film gets and why people on here say really bad things about it? OK, it doesn't have the charm depth of the first movie but it does a very good job of showing the viewer how arthur and his wife Linda ( Liza minelli) deal with life's problems without their wealth to fall on, and the fact arthur will have to handle that drinking problem now there might be a baby or two thrown into the mix.Moore's gags are as sharp as ever and you still cant help but fall for oddball arthur. All in all i feel "on the rocks" is a very moving film indeed.

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.

This film is terrible. It is an insult to the original.It is ill-conceived, poorly written, and poorly acted. It violates the original by being trite and unhumorous. It is mean spirited.It wouldn't know subtle if it hit it on the head. It should be destroyed and never played again. The characters are overblown and not believable.John Gielgud does the only redeeming acting in the entire film.The treatment of Fairchild that is supposed to be dramatic is just insultingly cruel.This film totally misses the mark on every count, and should be burned.