Rating summary

Movie		3.0
Video		3.0
Audio		2.5
Extras		0.5
Overall		2.5

Arthur / Arthur 2: On the Rocks Blu-ray Movie Review

Laugh with the original, tolerate its uninspired sequel, and grin-and-bear this middling BD release...

Reviewed by Kenneth Brown April 8, 2011

Ah, the early '80s. A simpler time when fashion was fresh, music was most triumphant, and the word "dude" was uttered with reckless abandon. A time when casual sex and AIDS were mutually exclusive, the term "secondhand smoke" hadn't entered the public lexicon, and "Just Say No" left parents with the firm belief Nancy Reagan would soon stamp out addiction altogether. A time when alcohol flowed like water, heavy drinkers were the life of the party, and inebriated comedies like Arthur and its childlike millionaire were genuinely funny. But there's a fine line between between childlike and childish; a line that divides writer/director Steve Gordon's 1981 original film from its insipid 1988 Bud Yorkin-directed sequel, Arthur 2: On the Rocks. The times had certainly changed -- in the seven years separating the two, almost everything Dudley Moore's titular lush indulged in was suddenly dangerous and irresponsible -- but so had the talent. While Moore and co-star Liza Minnelli returned, Gordon had died in 1982 and, with him, the first film's charm. The cause of both Gordon and the sequel's tragic deaths? Sadly, weak hearts.

"Everyone who drinks is not a poet. Maybe some of us drink because we're not poets."

"Don't you wish you were Arthur?" No, promotional artwork tagline: I don't wish I was Arthur. I wouldn't even be Facebook friends with Arthur Bach, much less go out with the poor schlep for even a single night on the town. I don't care how many millions he had crammed in his pockets. Spoiled, impulsive, careless, hedonistic, frivolous, amoral, thoughtless, unreliable... these aren't the traits I'm drawn to in anyone. Don't get me wrong, I'd happily watch Arthur make a fool of himself from across the room, laughing and shaking my head as he stumbled from drunken misadventure to drunken misadventure. No matter what though, I'd keep my distance. Thankfully, Gordon doesn't actually expect anyone to fall in love with Arthur (save Minnelli's wily waitress, Linda Marolla). At least not initially. Instead, he and leading man Dudley Moore put an endearing skip in Arthur's every wobbly step, a good-natured glint in his glassy eyes, and shovel enough gold into his heart to prevent him from becoming a downright unlikable wretch. From a distance, there's great fun to be had at Arthur's expense, and even more to be had with Arthur's arrested development and long-overdue coming-of-age tale.

The plot itself is pure, unadulterated '80s kitsch. A ludicrously wealthy middle-aged man-child is given an ultimatum by his fed-up folks: marry a grounded socialite named Susan Johnson (Jill Eikenberry) or forfeit his $750 million inheritance. Of course, it turns out Arthur has a soul buried beneath all that excess; a sweet, surprisingly gentle soul groomed by his servant Hobson (John Gielgud, who won a well-deserved Supporting Actor Oscar for Arthur) and cultivated by the spunky young working-class waitress with whom he falls in love. It doesn't get simpler -- or more distinctively '80s -- than that. But don't mistake simplicity for wayward silliness. There's far more going on in Arthur's alcohol-soaked brain than Gordon or Moore initially suggest, and far more driving the film along than anyone, Gielgud included, first let on. Between Moore's infuriating indifference (itself a carefully constructed facade) and Minnelli's intentionally obnoxious quirkiness, it would be easy to write off Arthur within minutes, long before Gielgud worms his way into your heart, long before Arthur has a chance to prove himself worthy of redemption, and long before Gordon's biting comedy hits its stride.

I'll admit Arthur has dulled a bit over the years and lost some of its luster. But it hasn't aged poorly so much as it hasn't matured as finely as other classic '80s comedies. Its gags, built around Moore's rubbery demeanor and slippery antics, aren't as sharp as they once seemed; its characters, despite serving their assigned roles extremely well, remain rather one-dimensional for the duration of the film; and Gielgud's is the only performance that continues to resonate as perfectly as it did thirty years ago. There are some who believe a classic film, particularly a classic comedy, shouldn't be judged by modern standards. But while I agree in principle, it's next to impossible to tuck a tub of popcorn in the crook of your arm and completely switch off the 21st Century sensibilities that so readily clash with everything that makes Arthur the delightfully harmless little early-80s portal it is. Still, those who are able to transport themselves three decades into the past, even if only for ninety-seven carefree minutes, will have no problem embracing and enjoying Moore's intoxicated introduction to responsibility, selflessness and love. Those who can't travel through time? A variety of embarrassing belly laughs are readily available to you as well; enough to make your visit with Arthur an entertaining one.

I almost, almost exiled Arthur 2: On the Rocks to the Extras section of my review. It's just that bad. But then I thought of all the unsuspecting newcomers who would be lured into Warner's latest Double Feature release with the hopes of picking up two gut-busting comedy classics. With them in mind, I decided it was only fair to give On the Rocks its day in court. Unlike the original Arthur, Yorkin's maligned, wholly unnecessary 1988 followup has been universally criticized, condemned and dismissed. (Even Dudley Moore ripped apart the sequel, washing his hands of the film while lobbing veiled accusations in Yorkin's direction.) And for good reason. Arthur 2 isn't funny, witty, intelligent, clever or, really, competent in the least. On screen, Moore seems all too aware of the coming critical and financial storms, Minnelli is grating at best, and a cheesy Gielgud cameo tarnishes the aforementioned gold statue sitting on the distinguished actor's mantle. Only Eikenberry had the good sense to decline the offer to reprise her role (Cynthia Sikes steps into Susan's high heels); a decision her co-stars should have made as well. The performances fizzle, Andy Breckman's script and story are a mess, the dialogue is dense and aimless, and Arthur's hijinks are positively pathetic. I think I'd rather spend two hours with Arthur himself -- something I just swore I'd never do -- than sit through On the Rocks a second time.

Spoiler alert, engage! If you haven't seen the original Arthur, it's best to skip the next few lines. Arthur and Linda, now less-than-happily married, decide they're ready to raise a bouncing baby Bach and toy with the idea of adopting a child. (Because what kid wouldn't be lucky to have Arthur for a father? Aside from all of them?) But their plans come undone when Bert Johnson (Stephen Elliott), Susan's ridiculously rich father, discovers a loophole that allows him to seize control of Arthur's $750 million inheritance and put the reformed womanizer out on the street. Can Arthur grow up? (Again?) Can he learn to live without his millions? (Again?) Can Linda whip him into shape? (Again?) If any of those questions strike you as burning, On the Rocks just might have something to offer you. However, if the oh-so-obvious answer to each question struck you as... well, oh-so-obvious, you're well on your way to grasping how listless, joyless and superfluous Yorkin's sequel is from top to bottom, beginning to end. Why not open the film as Arthur and Linda become new parents? Why not force the tipsy man-child to grow up further by tossing him into the deep end of the fatherhood pool? Why concoct an inane riches-to-rags plot when more fertile, comedy-rich soil is just a few steps away?

No such luck. On the Rocks stumbles from the outset, limps from scene to scene, and collapses in exhaustion, blind, boozy and wasted. Whatever fire Gordon lit in Arthur, Yorkin douses within minutes. Whatever chemistry Moore and Minnelli had in 1981, Yorkin and Breckman neglect to rekindle. Whatever cheeky charms the script and performances managed to produce, the sequel glosses over all too eagerly. On the Rocks is a pale imitation of the original film, not to mention an unsatisfying conclusion to Arthur's journey. If there's any redeeming value to be had, it's in Moore's desperate need to give the audience something, anything that might help the film go down a bit easier. Moore's comic stylings may still be an acquired taste, but he knew how to sell a reaction -- a twitch, an expression, a quip, a pratfall, you name it -- for everything it was worth. The handful of laughs On the Rocks has to give comes by way of Moore and no one else, and he's the only thing that keeps the sequel from imploding. My advice? Stick with the original and write off the sequel as a flat-lining special feature.

Arthur / Arthur 2: On the Rocks Blu-ray Movie, Video Quality 

The original Arthur's 1080p/AVC-encoded video transfer delivers an inherent upgrade from previous releases, but little more. Colors have benefited the most (which isn't saying a whole lot), skintones are reasonably lifelike, and saturation is decent. Unfortunately, black levels rarely bottom out, primaries are merely average (save a few welcome jolts of red and blue), nighttime scenes and poorly lit interiors are overrun with thick, crush-inducing shadow. Likewise, detail isn't going to leave anyone's jaw on the floor as most every shot has some degree of softness to contend with. Far more often than not, textures are indistinct, closeups are unrevealing, and edge definition is serviceable at best. Granted, much of the presentation's shortcomings trace back thirty years to Fred Schuler's photography, but the inconsistency and fluctuating clarity of the image is a real distraction. (Even 10 looks better than Arthur.) And while there isn't any significant artifacting, banding or aliasing to report, minor ringing, soupy noise and intermittent smearing spoil any party the encode gets started.

Ironically, the sequel's 1080p/AVC-encoded transfer improves matters dramatically. Though some print damage and scene-specific crush prove to be slight distractions, I can't imagine Arthur 2: On the Rocks looking more impressive than this. Colors are much stronger, blacks much deeper, skintones more natural, delineation more forgiving and contrast more striking and stable. Moreover, fine textures are readily apparent and nicely rendered, edges are sharper, the film's grainfield is refined and unobtrusive, and the entire presentation thoroughly outclasses every home video release before it. I didn't catch sight of any prevailing digital anomalies (minus some faint ringing), and the whole of the image defies the film's twenty-three years. On the Rocks may be the lesser of the two films, but its transfer is far and away the highlight of Warner's Blu-ray release.

Arthur / Arthur 2: On the Rocks Blu-ray Movie, Audio Quality 

All quiet on the audio front. Arthur staggers onto Blu-ray with a thin, sluggish DTS-HD Master Audio mono mix that does little to enhance the experience. Voices are clean and clear (albeit tainted with an early-80s tinniness), but effects barely eek out a living and Burt Bacharach's score doesn't have much room to breathe. Don't get me wrong: I'm all for faithful mono tracks. But Arthur's lossless mix falls flat -- in more ways than the obvious -- and doesn't involve or engage the listener on any level.

On the Rocks again bests its 1981 counterpart with a DTS-HD Master Audio stereo track. Seven years separate the two films and the sequel's sonics follow suit. Dialogue is crisper, effects are brighter, and Bacharach's music has its run of the place. Arthur 2's sound design really shows its age at times, busier scenes are a tad underwhelming, and the lack of LFE and rear speaker support will undoubtedly disappoint some. But as catalog-title stereo tracks go, Warner's lossless two-channel mix gets the job done.

Arthur / Arthur 2: On the Rocks Blu-ray Movie, Special Features and Extras 

A standard definition theatrical trailer is included with Arthur and Arthur 2: On the Rocks, but Warner's latest Double Feature release doesn't offer any other supplemental content. Not even a sneak peek at the forthcoming Arthur remake starring Russell Brand, Jennifer Garner and Helen Mirren.

Arthur / Arthur 2: On the Rocks Blu-ray Movie, Overall Score and Recommendation 

Come for Arthur, stay for... Arthur actually. Arthur 2: On the Rocks is a bland, unbelievably brainless curiosity that, quite frankly, isn't going to win over many new fans. Certainly not as many as the original. Unfortunately, Warner's Blu-ray release is hit-or-miss as well. Neither film includes any significant special features, Arthur's AV presentation is a letdown, and only the sequel's video transfer and DTS-HD Master Audio stereo track leave a lasting mark. Still, for $15, Warner's latest Double Feature is worth considering for Arthur alone. It isn't going to turn heads, but it bests its DVD counterpart. For some, that will be enough.