DVD REVIEW: ARTHUR 2: ON THE ROCKS
- By Greg Clark
- Published 03/17/2005
- DVD
BUY IT AT AMAZON: CLICK HERE!
MSRP: $14.97 RATED: PG
RUNNING TIME: 113
SPECIAL FEATURES:
Trailer
Let’s take a trip back in time to about 25 years ago. A time before there were 60 stations on basic cable alone, before every bimbo with a trust fund can get a series on television (and, more depressingly, get people to watch), before every film was made with the intention of making at least five more entires. During this time, Dudley Moore and Liza Minnelli were big stars in Hollywood. No, neither of them were the biggest (although, for a spell, Liza was flirting with it), but to imagine two such odd-looking celebrities would be considered bankable is somewhat baffling at first. But if you watch the original Arthur, in which Dudley put that incessant slur to perfect use playing a rich, spoiled drunk who discovers true love in between bottles of scotch, you can see why the masses warmed to him as a front man, albeit rather briefly.
To look at the careers of both Moore and Minnelli is to ask oneself “What the hell happened?” Minnelli was at the top of the world after Caberet—her singing career took off, she was everywhere, and could get almost any role. However, in the decade between Cabaret and Arthur, Liza only did four pictures—the only one of note is Scorsese’s New York, New York. After the success of Arthur, she followed it up with…Rent a Cop. Arthur 2 was probably seen as a step up for her after that disaster.
Moore’s success was a bit more long-lived—he was popular in Britain long before audiences here discovered him in 10. His ability as a comedic performer has never been in doubt, and he’s quite the lovable clown. There’s a real honesty to Moore’s performances, even in crap like Santa Claus: The Movie, that always made me a bit sad to see his career turn out like it did—a punchline rather than a comedian. Similar to Liza, the success of Arthur proved to be a curse for him—other than the enjoyable Micki & Maude, his talent was for the most part wasted in the seven years leading up to the money grab that was Arthur 2: On the Rocks. I’m not even going to waste time feigning wonderment if the sequel holds up to the original, because that would be mean. It doesn’t. Let’s move onto this train wreck, shall we?
The Film
At the end of the first Arthur, said title character (Moore) had finally managed to get the two things he loved the most: his girl, Linda (Minnelli), and his inherited fortune, some $750 million. The original conflict was that Arthur was set to marry another rich girl as part of a business deal, and if he didn’t he’d be cut off from his family. At the film’s climax, Arthur ditches his betrothed at the altar, much to the fury of her vengeful father, Burt Johnson, and convinces his grandmother to accept whomever he chooses to marry without repercussion, then gets the girl. All was well, or so it seemed.
Arthur 2: On the Rocks opens with Dudley driving around in a drunken stupor, mostly because that’s how the first one started out. After an excruciating five-minute gag of him following around a rich guy in his car and banging on his window (it was amusing for the first 45 seconds), he stumbles into a restaurant to have dinner with his now-wife Linda, to hear the wonderful news that she’s sterile and can’t have children. Ain’t that a riot? The original Arthur was able to get away with making light of some rather serious subjects (alcoholism is funny!) by keeping its central character sympathetic and child-like; however, in Arthur 2, things stop being funny and just become mean-spirited and naïve.
The main conflict of the story comes in when Arthur’s father, in an unexplained and enormously stupid move, goes into business with Burt Johnson, the man who tried to shoot Arthur when his little girl was left at the altar. Through a “sneaky” trick that any businessman worth his weight in Armani should’ve been able to see coming, Johnson performs a hostile takeover and instructs Arthur’s family that if they wish to keep on living as they are, they must cut all financial ties to Arthur, rendering him homeless and penniless. That is, of course, unless Arthur decides to divorce Linda and marry his daughter Susan (a hopelessly deluded and air-headed trust brat that feels like a reject from Dynasty). Determined to not let Johnson get the best of them, Linda and Arthur get a low-rent apartment and start working low-wage jobs, all the while trying to convince a representative from an adoption agency (pre-fame Kathy Bates, sporting a rather scary perm) that they’d make great parents, despite their sudden misfortune. However, they soon discover that no matter where they move, no matter where Arthur works, Johnson is waiting there to buy up the building or company and then instructing them to fire or evict the couple.
If the proceedings seem a little cartoonish and unbelievable, then you’re right. Arthur 2 tries for a happy balance between comedy and human drama, but ends up being merely plodding and miserable. John Gielguld receives third billing on the credits here, but shows up as the ghost of Hobson, Arthur’s beloved butler from the first movie, for about ten minutes. It’s a pointless and confusing plot device, which I guess should go to the movie’s credit for at least being consistently pointless and confusing. The entire movie feels like a misguided pilot for Arthur: The Series, right down to stereotypical supporting characters and overlit, static apartment sets.
I was all ready to just digest this movie as just a disappointing and unneeded sequel, but then the climax does something so outrageously stupid that not only does it negate pretty much the entire movie, it’s also the most disgustingly inane use of a deus ex machina I’ve ever seen in a mainstream movie. Arthur, in a moment of sobriety and inspiration, digs up the worst dirt he can on Johnson and plans to use it to force Burt to back off and give him his money back. Johnson, laughing, informs Arthur that the statute of limitations has long since expired on the dirt Arthur found and the threat was empty. For a brief, fleeting moment, I thought the movie had randomly grown some balls and was going to try for something apart from the conventional. But then Susan, the insane daughter who’s been acting like a rabid she-wolf the entire movie, comes to Arthur’s rescue and demands that her mean old daddy back off of Arthur and that she never really loved him anyway. It was such a mind bogglingly unoriginal copout (even for a movie like this) that it irked me more than it should’ve. And as if that wasn’t enough, we’re then treated to a rapid succession of happy occasions after that: they get their adopted newborn (Kathy Bates apparently grabbed the baby as it popped out of the mother’s uterus and hailed the nearest taxi), Arthur and Linda move back into their mansion, Arthur gives his new butler Hobson’s old room, and Linda magically discovers she’s pregnant! The whole shitty affair ends with a vomit-worthy freeze frame of Arthur and Linda smiling affectionately at each other and laughing joyously. Gag.
2.0 out of 10
The Look
Has got to be the blandest, most generically shot movie ever. Truly feels like a misguided pilot for Arthur: The Series than an actual film. No dirt or scratches, no unbalanced colors, but it’s not like there was anywhere they could’ve messed up. This is the kind of disc you give an intern to do.
4.5 out of 10
The Sound
The dialogue is fuzzy in parts, but I think this has been a problem since its release. I’m not blaming the mixers, but the sound here sucks. Presented in standard, boring 2.0 Surround…just like a TV sitcom.
4.0 out of 10
The Extras
The theatrical trailer, which failed in masking the fact that this movie doesn’t even have a minute and a half’s worth of funny moments. Other than that, this movie is empty.
1.0 out of 10
The Artwork
The cover from the VHS release (and the theatrical poster, I think) is used, and like the movie, it’s boring as hell. The tagline “No Money. Still Funny.” is grossly inaccurate as well. Oh, well, at least it’s not a snapper.
3.0 out of 10
MSRP: $14.97 RATED: PG
RUNNING TIME: 113
SPECIAL FEATURES:
Trailer
Let’s take a trip back in time to about 25 years ago. A time before there were 60 stations on basic cable alone, before every bimbo with a trust fund can get a series on television (and, more depressingly, get people to watch), before every film was made with the intention of making at least five more entires. During this time, Dudley Moore and Liza Minnelli were big stars in Hollywood. No, neither of them were the biggest (although, for a spell, Liza was flirting with it), but to imagine two such odd-looking celebrities would be considered bankable is somewhat baffling at first. But if you watch the original Arthur, in which Dudley put that incessant slur to perfect use playing a rich, spoiled drunk who discovers true love in between bottles of scotch, you can see why the masses warmed to him as a front man, albeit rather briefly.
To look at the careers of both Moore and Minnelli is to ask oneself “What the hell happened?” Minnelli was at the top of the world after Caberet—her singing career took off, she was everywhere, and could get almost any role. However, in the decade between Cabaret and Arthur, Liza only did four pictures—the only one of note is Scorsese’s New York, New York. After the success of Arthur, she followed it up with…Rent a Cop. Arthur 2 was probably seen as a step up for her after that disaster.
Moore’s success was a bit more long-lived—he was popular in Britain long before audiences here discovered him in 10. His ability as a comedic performer has never been in doubt, and he’s quite the lovable clown. There’s a real honesty to Moore’s performances, even in crap like Santa Claus: The Movie, that always made me a bit sad to see his career turn out like it did—a punchline rather than a comedian. Similar to Liza, the success of Arthur proved to be a curse for him—other than the enjoyable Micki & Maude, his talent was for the most part wasted in the seven years leading up to the money grab that was Arthur 2: On the Rocks. I’m not even going to waste time feigning wonderment if the sequel holds up to the original, because that would be mean. It doesn’t. Let’s move onto this train wreck, shall we?
The Film
At the end of the first Arthur, said title character (Moore) had finally managed to get the two things he loved the most: his girl, Linda (Minnelli), and his inherited fortune, some $750 million. The original conflict was that Arthur was set to marry another rich girl as part of a business deal, and if he didn’t he’d be cut off from his family. At the film’s climax, Arthur ditches his betrothed at the altar, much to the fury of her vengeful father, Burt Johnson, and convinces his grandmother to accept whomever he chooses to marry without repercussion, then gets the girl. All was well, or so it seemed.
Arthur 2: On the Rocks opens with Dudley driving around in a drunken stupor, mostly because that’s how the first one started out. After an excruciating five-minute gag of him following around a rich guy in his car and banging on his window (it was amusing for the first 45 seconds), he stumbles into a restaurant to have dinner with his now-wife Linda, to hear the wonderful news that she’s sterile and can’t have children. Ain’t that a riot? The original Arthur was able to get away with making light of some rather serious subjects (alcoholism is funny!) by keeping its central character sympathetic and child-like; however, in Arthur 2, things stop being funny and just become mean-spirited and naïve.
The main conflict of the story comes in when Arthur’s father, in an unexplained and enormously stupid move, goes into business with Burt Johnson, the man who tried to shoot Arthur when his little girl was left at the altar. Through a “sneaky” trick that any businessman worth his weight in Armani should’ve been able to see coming, Johnson performs a hostile takeover and instructs Arthur’s family that if they wish to keep on living as they are, they must cut all financial ties to Arthur, rendering him homeless and penniless. That is, of course, unless Arthur decides to divorce Linda and marry his daughter Susan (a hopelessly deluded and air-headed trust brat that feels like a reject from Dynasty). Determined to not let Johnson get the best of them, Linda and Arthur get a low-rent apartment and start working low-wage jobs, all the while trying to convince a representative from an adoption agency (pre-fame Kathy Bates, sporting a rather scary perm) that they’d make great parents, despite their sudden misfortune. However, they soon discover that no matter where they move, no matter where Arthur works, Johnson is waiting there to buy up the building or company and then instructing them to fire or evict the couple.
If the proceedings seem a little cartoonish and unbelievable, then you’re right. Arthur 2 tries for a happy balance between comedy and human drama, but ends up being merely plodding and miserable. John Gielguld receives third billing on the credits here, but shows up as the ghost of Hobson, Arthur’s beloved butler from the first movie, for about ten minutes. It’s a pointless and confusing plot device, which I guess should go to the movie’s credit for at least being consistently pointless and confusing. The entire movie feels like a misguided pilot for Arthur: The Series, right down to stereotypical supporting characters and overlit, static apartment sets.
I was all ready to just digest this movie as just a disappointing and unneeded sequel, but then the climax does something so outrageously stupid that not only does it negate pretty much the entire movie, it’s also the most disgustingly inane use of a deus ex machina I’ve ever seen in a mainstream movie. Arthur, in a moment of sobriety and inspiration, digs up the worst dirt he can on Johnson and plans to use it to force Burt to back off and give him his money back. Johnson, laughing, informs Arthur that the statute of limitations has long since expired on the dirt Arthur found and the threat was empty. For a brief, fleeting moment, I thought the movie had randomly grown some balls and was going to try for something apart from the conventional. But then Susan, the insane daughter who’s been acting like a rabid she-wolf the entire movie, comes to Arthur’s rescue and demands that her mean old daddy back off of Arthur and that she never really loved him anyway. It was such a mind bogglingly unoriginal copout (even for a movie like this) that it irked me more than it should’ve. And as if that wasn’t enough, we’re then treated to a rapid succession of happy occasions after that: they get their adopted newborn (Kathy Bates apparently grabbed the baby as it popped out of the mother’s uterus and hailed the nearest taxi), Arthur and Linda move back into their mansion, Arthur gives his new butler Hobson’s old room, and Linda magically discovers she’s pregnant! The whole shitty affair ends with a vomit-worthy freeze frame of Arthur and Linda smiling affectionately at each other and laughing joyously. Gag.
2.0 out of 10
The Look
Has got to be the blandest, most generically shot movie ever. Truly feels like a misguided pilot for Arthur: The Series than an actual film. No dirt or scratches, no unbalanced colors, but it’s not like there was anywhere they could’ve messed up. This is the kind of disc you give an intern to do.
4.5 out of 10
The Sound
The dialogue is fuzzy in parts, but I think this has been a problem since its release. I’m not blaming the mixers, but the sound here sucks. Presented in standard, boring 2.0 Surround…just like a TV sitcom.
4.0 out of 10
The Extras
The theatrical trailer, which failed in masking the fact that this movie doesn’t even have a minute and a half’s worth of funny moments. Other than that, this movie is empty.
1.0 out of 10
The Artwork
The cover from the VHS release (and the theatrical poster, I think) is used, and like the movie, it’s boring as hell. The tagline “No Money. Still Funny.” is grossly inaccurate as well. Oh, well, at least it’s not a snapper.
3.0 out of 10
Overall: 2.9
