Steve D
Even dumber and less funny than the original.
Rated 0.5/5 Stars •
Rated 0.5 out of 5 stars
02/27/23
Full Review
Audience Member
Not as bad as they say, but there was no need for a sequel.
Rated 3/5 Stars •
Rated 3 out of 5 stars
02/01/23
Full Review
Audience Member
I made myself watch this, knowing it would be horrible, but perhaps wanting to confirm it.
Why was the original Arthur so great? It was fresh, funny, and new. For many, it was the first time seeing Dudley Moore onscreen. Liza Minelli was more of a veteran, but she fit the character of Linda Merola perfectly. And of course Sir John Gielgud was the elegant, cynical cherry on the scrumptious icing on the delectable cake. The movie offered just a bit of pathos, with Arthur's loneliness, Linda's low socioeconomic status, and Hobson's terminal illness. But overall, it was a plucky, stylish little comedy and you knew exactly how the lead characters should win. Everything about the film worked, including the New York exteriors and the musical score.
Did Arthur and Linda live happily ever after? Who cares! The story ended on a satisfying note -- it was just like a wedding we might attend, where we don't know the couple that well, but everyone has a good time, just for that day at least, and we wish them well. We scarcely notice if we never even get a Christmas card from them afterward. You think of them fondly, but you don't try to get back in touch.
I wish the people behind the Arthur sequel could have followed this advice. Dudley Moore and Liza Minelli (not to mention Sir John) were big enough stars by then, they could have had their pick of any worthy script out there. But perhaps their inherently good natures steered them in the wrong direction. Someone convinced them that everyone wanted MORE of Arthur, Linda, and Hobson. "Life isn't all about laughs," someone probably said in the pitch. "Audiences want characters they can relate to! How many married couples out there want children, but then decide to try adoption, and have to contend with social service agencies? Plenty! So if we put Arthur and Linda in that situation, throw in the vengeful spurned ex-fiancee, Arthur's drinking, and oh, of course, all that fabulous money -- it's a can't-miss! We can even throw Hobson back into the mix. Have his ghost show up! Wheeeee!"
I can practically hear the specious arguments, with the musical score of "Cha-CHING!" in the background. They must have felt really smug, getting virtually the entire original cast on board. But they left out laughs, or even logic in the storyline. How painful it must have been, first reading the script, then filming the scenes, and then finally seeing the result on the big screen. Ouch. Dudley Moore wasn't really an alcoholic, but I suspect he may have considered becoming one after this mess. Fanfiction could have handled it better. Whoever is responsible for it should be required to take whatever profits they derived, plus whatever expenses they incurred, and turn those amounts back over to Minelli and the estates of Moore and Gielgud.
I've been perusing RT's list of worst movies and if there is any justice whatsoever, this will be on it.
Rated 0.5/5 Stars •
Rated 0.5 out of 5 stars
01/17/23
Full Review
william s
Why did they have to piss on a classic?????
Rated 0.5/5 Stars •
Rated 0.5 out of 5 stars
03/31/23
Full Review
Audience Member
I love that they have a second arthur movie. But now arthur and Linda are trying to adopt a baby. Don't like the idea by Arthur and Linda are trying to adopt a kid. Cute kid. Terrible....
Rated 2/5 Stars •
Rated 2 out of 5 stars
02/19/23
Full Review
Audience Member
good movie to put you asleep..loved the first one..but on this one the plot is just so boring and arthur seems to not have much of the charm and good jokes he had in the first
Rated 2/5 Stars •
Rated 2 out of 5 stars
02/22/23
Full Review
Read all reviews
Post a rating
>
