Arthur Bach (Dudley Moore) is as drunk and irreverent as ever. He is happily married and supports Linda (Liza Minnelli) in adopting a child. Mrs. Canby is their case worker. Burt Johnson seeks revenge for his daughter Susan by taking over Arthur's $750 million fortune. Susan still wants him back and hopes for him to change his mind. Arthur loses everything and struggles as part of the poorer class living with her father Ralph Marolla. Burt Johnson buys their building and evicts them. They find a rundown apartment with landlord Mr. Butterworth. There's a baby for adoption but Arthur needs to stop drinking and get a job. As the situation hits rock bottom, he is visited by the ghost of Hobson.This movie suffers from the very fact that it was made. Any movie would struggle with trying to continue after Happily Ever After. I think this movie does its best without having to create large number of new characters. It's logical that Burt would seek revenge and it serves Arthur's growth by taking away his money. Most of this works well and Minnelli does not deserve the Razzi for her performance in this movie. Her character shows good heart. There are other problems with the story. I don't like Burt pulling a gun which isn't necessary. The resolution could be better constructed. A sequel is always going to be difficult but this is not as bad as its reputation.

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.

The first Arthur is a very funny and very charming movie, if not quite classic status. This sequel gets a lot of flack, and while it is inferior it is better than its dubious reputation. I agree the plot is rather weak this time around, complete with a very predictable ending. Some of the script and jokes are hit and miss, the jokes about the drunkeness of Arthur were better than the ones about the rehabilitation, and the pace slackens in the second half. John Gielgud does do with what he can, which is still very enjoyable, but his material isn't as acidic or as droll, which was a disappointment seeing as that made his performance in the original even more enjoyable. However, there are many entertaining parts to make up for the misses as well as some touching parts with Arthur and Hobson, the film still looks great, and if I noticed two improvements I'd say Arthur is more likable here with some fun one-liners and the first half is slicker than that of the first's. The performances are fine, Dudley Moore and Liza Minnelli show good chemistry and are fun to watch, and John Gielgud and Kathy Bates do what they can. All in all, a decent sequel and better than it's made out to be. 6/10 Bethany Cox

Had this sequel to 1981's "Arthur" been made immediately following that film's surprise success, maybe audiences would've been interested. Maybe Dudley Moore wouldn't look so stung by the career-bombs he endured throughout the 1980s. Alas, the biggest problem with this draggy, silly comedy is the absence of Steve Gordon, who wrote and directed the original and died shortly thereafter. This film has none of nuances of the first, none of the laughs or warmth, yet it does retain the forced drunken humor of its title character--and this in itself looked really out of place in sober 1988. What a shame, nearly everyone is here (including John Gielgud in a cameo), but it just doesn't pass. Blame it on a leaden script, a direction with no bounce, and too much time under the bridge for anyone to care anymore. *1/2 from ****