Instant Favorite.

Excellent but underrated film

Absolutely the worst movie.

There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

Sequels are difficult. In many cases, it's just impossible to catch the lightning in the bottle the second time, no matter how hard they try. In this case, it looked like they plain flat mailed it in, hoping that everyone who loved the original Arthur would flock to the theaters to see this mess. The only motivation I could see for this movie was to make more money. Every aspect of the film was embarrassingly bad. We watched the 2011 Arthur (quite good in its own interpretation of the story), the original Arthur, and then this during one sitting. This was so bad we couldn't finish the viewing. Obviously money can be more important than pride.

I've given this sequel '7' because I'm a Dudley Moore fan. But really, it isn't as good as the first.Moore's character, Arthur Bach, has made a stand and been cut off from his fortune. Indeed, his malevolent father-in-law-elect has cut him off from everything. He's unemployable, destitute and on the street.Never having worked, he desperately attempts to secure the most menial occupation, but each time those obdurate relatives put their boot in. At one stage he is cleaning windscreens at traffic lights and finally sleeping in a hostel for the homeless.Gielgud, as his ever-supportive butler Hobson - who died at the end of the first movie - makes cameo reappearances in ghostly form. Bach is depicted as walking and talking with him. He is only visible to Bach, who resembles any other alcoholic lost-cause conversing with invisible familiars.This movie is darker than the first, which was more a celebration of the wealthy, drunken, playboy lifestyle. Here, he is coming to terms with his demons, in the bottle and elsewhere. At one point he elects to visit his socialite would-be wife and resolve their dilemma once and for all. But by then he has become so shabby and neglected that the doorman will not allow him entry. There is conversation: The doorman asks, 'Is she a friend of yours, sir?' Before Arthur can reply, invisible Hobson observes; 'That's a very good question, isn't it Arthur? Cuts right to the heart of the matter.' Perhaps inevitably,there is less comedy in this movie and sometimes what there is is slightly strained. Arthur's rehabilitation pulls less laughs than his drunkenness. Even so, there's plenty of funny moments, and a fairy-book happy-ending.Still worth a watch because the thoughtful elements make for a more in-depth character evaluation, but the first movie is the one for hilarious comedy.

The critics panned this film as did many readers here and I can't believe they saw the same film I did. It had all the laughs and all the warmth of the original "Arthur". It was great seeing this wonderful cast again, along with some enjoyable newcomers. I've seen it about 4 or more times and its storyline is a perfect fit for a sequel. Jack Gilford as the landlord was a stitch and Stephen Elliott as Burt Johnson was a most believable and cunning adversary. And what a great premise having wealthy Arthur Bach having to eke out a living to support his pregnant wife and pay the rent for his ramshackle apartment. It matched the original "Arthur"'s charm and wit to a tee! I guess the mood you're in when you see a film can affect how you rate it.

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 ****