MovieChat Forums > Arthur 2: On the Rocks (1988) Discussion > Not as good, but funnier?

Not as good, but funnier?

posted 18 years ago by JamesConway
15 replies | jump to latest

It seems easy to mock this film, the irony being that 1988 had much more of the 'big business' attitude towards the film industry in which the storyline of Arthur 2 fitted in more snug that the original thanks to other films such as Wall Street and Cocktail.

True it doesnt have the magic of the original, the best way to treat this film is to view it as a series of set-pieces in which the amazing abilities of Moore can run riot. The hardware store, the meeting with the adoption agency (I love the 'stand there' line!) and Hobsons scene. Even the supporting cast put in the graft too. The storyline does grow more outlandish with every scene, especially as the initial bankrupt scenes are quite touching. That aside we simply have a continuation of what can only be a fairytale, but who wants to live that forever? Arthur 2 gives hope to all us short, British, eccentrics.

regards

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nighttilldawn 18 years ago

I actually like this movie better than the orginal...

[–] DerekClive 18 years ago

i like this movie better also, it is more touching and grown up than the first, but anything Dudley is in is gold.

[–] Pipchick 18 years ago

I liked both movies, but the first was the best, the second was funny also.

[–] drawbunny 18 years ago

I love 'em both but the original is the winner.
Moore's Arthur and Gielgud's Hobson are perfect together

[–] reverendtom 17 years ago

"It seems easy to mock this film, the irony being that 1988 had much more of the 'big business' attitude towards the film industry in which the storyline of Arthur 2 fitted in more snug that the original thanks to other films such as Wall Street and Cocktail."

JamesConway, congrats, you have written the worst sentence in the history of the written word.

[–] monty_python_eric 17 years ago

"JamesConway, congrats, you have written the worst sentence in the history of the written word."

Congratulations reverendtom for failing to spell 'World'

Anyway, I think this movie has one problem: Hobson only makes a brief appearance. Yes I know he's dead but that's my only reason. They didn't show enough of Fairchild either

But Dud is brilliant in this - as always
-------
TIM BROOKE-TAYLOR: Pay no attention to him[Bill], Graeme, He's pissed...
GRAEME GARDEN: Oh has he?

[–] reverendtom 17 years ago

Hey python, I hope you are joking. If so, good one, if not, you are dumb. The history of the written WORD, dumbass. Like things that are made up of letters. Sentences are made up of them. WORDS. Hope you can grasp that.

[–] Davidp1979 17 years ago

I think I loved the first one better. The second one had some good parts though, especially when they have to move in with her father and their sitting at the table crackin' jokes at one another about the meatloaf, that was hilarious.

"Has anybody seen my fabricated half inch pipe" - lol....hehehehehe

[–] I_John_Barrymore_I 14 years ago

This whole exchange is hilarious. What is the word coming to?

"If I have any genius it is a genius for living" - Errol Flynn

[–] mcgill_j 14 years ago

"I'm thankful that I got the smallest portion of meatloaf."

I can see 2 sides to the argument as to which is better.. and the moments between Hobson and Arthur towards the end.. are quite touching.. and unfortunately their scene in 2 while great seeing that chemistry back.. and I think even STRONGER than in the original.. still wasn't enough to over come some of the weakness of the sequel.. which does strain some credibility.. but I look at it like this.

Arthur may be a better film.. but Arthur 2 really as somsone said let Moore loose and to run and gun.. and just indulge every crazy instinct of the character of Arthur Bach.. plus I enjoyed the dynamic of Arthur having to explore how to be poor.

Unfortunately.. Fairchild wasn't quite up to being the Hobson to Arthur.. He wasn't.. and really couldn't be.. although he was on his way there towards the end.. but I enjoy the second one MORE.. on just a plain fun level.

Dudley's "fabricated half inch pipe" piano tune.. or just the.. as I am watching it now.. the whole very very uncomfortable scene where Arthur is telling Fairchild to get in one of Linda's nightgowns and get in bed with him.. lol.. It's so.. uncomfortable you want to fall over laughing.

So.. yeah.. if you want a more.. serious film.. then do enjoy the first.. but if you want the experience of Arthur.. but albeit more breezy and light.. get it On the Rocks..

[–] Frostrose 14 years ago

I like it better than the first. The first one was too sentimental and not as funny/entertaining.

[–] crankyerma1984 13 years ago

I can't believe so many people are so confused as to the meaning of the word "good." Let's use it properly in a sentence, shall we?:
"Arthur 2: On The Rocks" was not a GOOD movie.

See, "good" is actually the antithesis of steaming piles of doggie soft-serve like "Arthur 2." Things that are "good" don't inspire the sort of derision and hatred that movie critics usually only reserve for child pornography, snuff films and Tyler Perry comedies. "Good" films are written with creative titles that don't require a number in them. They also don't crassly exploit the name of a much better film to make a cynical grab for the viewing public's wallet.

[–] lroy77 11 years ago

Actually I like this one better. For one, I was adopted at birth so I can relate. It seems that Liza (being the daughter of Judy Garland who had her own alcohol problems) was good for the alcoholic "Arthur". And WHY would any of Bach's family have ANY alcohol around knowing that Arthur would be around. That's just asking for trouble.

[–] SaxmanMC 8 years ago

I liked it too. Nice continuation of the storyline. I really miss Dudley Moore. he was so great!