SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

GazerRise Fantastic!

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

statuskuo I honestly wanted to like this movie so much. Because the original had so much charm and wit and it took you by surprise. In this flat, lifeless, darker sequel, you see the fun slowly fade into what could've been.I'm not going to give you the plot other than they really had to find a way to get Arthur back on the wagon, then off then find the new step to "growing up." This is the point of the first one. In this one, it does become the next logical step. HOWEVER, digging deep for a villain, we're re-introduced to a familiar family. The Johnsons. Who, after over 5 years, still dwell on the pain which is Arthur escaping their clutches. I will never understand then (from the 1st Arthur) from this one, why they chose the most beautiful WASPy girl, clear beauty queens to fawn over Dudley Moore, other than it makes for good comedy (or a better contrast to Minelli). But I felt they swung a little too far having Cynthia Sikes be enamored with the over- aged, too short Moore, who offers, nothing to the table. I can see that this is a dilemma to most people. The original story wasn't about his relationship to Minelli. It actually was about him and Gielgud. A man-child who finally confronts serious issues and grows up. There is no sequel here. Other then for money people to break him down again, to build him back up, to use in name only "Arthur."You know a movie is in trouble when you rely on ghosts of movies past to present exposition. Anyway, they really missed the boat (if they really wanted to make a sequel). This was a cheerless unhappy viewing of a train wreck. What a shame.

mark.waltz So said Estelle Getty on an episode of "Golden Girls" when Bea Arthur makes a comment on Liza Minnelli's stint in rehab. In retrospect, the film is certainly not as bad as the critics said it was, and while a sequel may not have been necessary, it was certainly more welcome than the wretched re-make of the original. In fact, the sequel gives Liza more to do than the first one, since John Gielgud's Hobson is now relegated to a ghostly appearance to show Dudley Moore's title character what he was missing in a sort of "It's a Wonderful Life" spoof.Ironically, "Golden Girls" featured two appearances by the legendary Geraldine Fitzgerald, repeating her role here as Arthur's matronly grandmother, and also getting more to do. Liza takes on an interesting comparison to her own life, playing a woman unable to have her own child, and trying to find a baby to adopt. The main plot about Arthur's ex-fiancée's father going out of his way to bankrupt him in revenge is the only weak point, but that is overshadowed by the heart and soul of Moore and Minnelli's romance. So give this one a chance. You may not come out of it singing about the moon and New York City, but you won't be declaring it "Ishtar" either.

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.