Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

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.

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

I watched the first arthur about ten years ago and it's still one of my all time favorite films that i watch when ever i can, but it took me until last week to watch "on the rocks". I really don't get all the hate this film gets and why people on here say really bad things about it? OK, it doesn't have the charm depth of the first movie but it does a very good job of showing the viewer how arthur and his wife Linda ( Liza minelli) deal with life's problems without their wealth to fall on, and the fact arthur will have to handle that drinking problem now there might be a baby or two thrown into the mix.Moore's gags are as sharp as ever and you still cant help but fall for oddball arthur. All in all i feel "on the rocks" is a very moving film indeed.

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.