missundaztood9 This was largely panned when it came out and was a flop at the box office, but it is a decent sequel and another feelgood film, just like the first one. My advice is to just watch it and enjoy it, and to not listen to any negative reviews about it.

statuskuo I honestly wanted to like this movie so much. Because the original had so much charm and wit and it took you by surprise. In this flat, lifeless, darker sequel, you see the fun slowly fade into what could've been.I'm not going to give you the plot other than they really had to find a way to get Arthur back on the wagon, then off then find the new step to "growing up." This is the point of the first one. In this one, it does become the next logical step. HOWEVER, digging deep for a villain, we're re-introduced to a familiar family. The Johnsons. Who, after over 5 years, still dwell on the pain which is Arthur escaping their clutches. I will never understand then (from the 1st Arthur) from this one, why they chose the most beautiful WASPy girl, clear beauty queens to fawn over Dudley Moore, other than it makes for good comedy (or a better contrast to Minelli). But I felt they swung a little too far having Cynthia Sikes be enamored with the over- aged, too short Moore, who offers, nothing to the table. I can see that this is a dilemma to most people. The original story wasn't about his relationship to Minelli. It actually was about him and Gielgud. A man-child who finally confronts serious issues and grows up. There is no sequel here. Other then for money people to break him down again, to build him back up, to use in name only "Arthur."You know a movie is in trouble when you rely on ghosts of movies past to present exposition. Anyway, they really missed the boat (if they really wanted to make a sequel). This was a cheerless unhappy viewing of a train wreck. What a shame.

Gunn 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.

S_Maxwell Yeah I know it's not popular to like this one. I know it's been derided for being an unnecessary sequel and that's one of the nicer criticisms. It's been called every nasty thing in the book, but now I've seen it and I'm not sure what all of the negative fuss is about. I went into Arthur 2 expecting the worst. Instead I discovered that it's actually a very lovable little film. I like the original Arthur and this sequel. My only major disappointment was that I was in the mood for a truly bad movie. Instead it turned out to be a wonderful little flick. Arthur 2 left me smiling and feeling good. I'm going to buy the DVD. Thanks Arthur!