Loved the first one but I think this is somewhat weaker movie. Great Computer graphics Image, very nice directing, loved the looks of the movie, very pleasant to the eyes but the story isn't as appealing as the first one. Maybe that is a problem common to all trilogies, being the second one the least appealing of all. I have seen the first in French version, this one I watched in English, loved both versions but I think the English one is slightly better because as the actors are speaking in their natural language things seem more natural when in real life scenes It is a very nice movie to show to our kids and can be used as a nice entry level movie for European Cinema, for preteen kids. It keeps that good French tradition of great care with image and details. all looks so wonderful! Still it is good fun and in the end it seems to open the door for an absolutely fantastic 3rd one! Hope my expectations come true.
Add a Review
-
pdl1234520 April 2011
-
tessa-625-3354843 January 2010Didn't see the first movie, but I'm not very much inclined to go see it now. My 11-year old was very disappointed with the way the story abruptly ends with a 'to be continued' and I could only agree with her.
Although all the elements for an exciting adventure are there, somehow it isn't put together very well. There are too many details that have not been worked out well, specifically with a lot of the characters. The villain from the title doesn't appear until the last quarter of the movie, and just when you think the story is finally going to unravel, it's finished! Open endings can be interesting, but I wouldn't call this an open ending. The boy is still not back, his (grand)parents are still searching, the central matter that most of the movie evolves around has not been solved in any way and even in the end I had no clue to what the revenge of Malthazar was going to be. Being big and in the real world couldn't be all of it, could it?
To me it seemed like only half a movie, or the first part of a miniseries on TV. Outrageous that I was nowhere warned for this! -
TheLittleSongbird14 August 2013Arthur and the Invisibles had a lot of problems but also had a fair share of good points, that made it an at least watchable if mediocre film. Arthur and the Great Adventure was a rather messy sequel that made the same mistakes as its predecessor and made even more on its way. It does have some good things too. The backgrounds have some great detail and it is colourful to look at, so most of the animation is good. The soundtrack is bouncy and has an adventurous feel to it. Freddie Highmore is still likable in the title role while Mia Farrow is as kindly and compassionate as in the first film and Selena Gomez is an improvement over Madonna, actually sounding like a young princess and closer to Highmore's age rather than somebody trying to sound younger. The story is very thinly plotted though and reads a lot like filler, not helped also by very hyperactive pacing and an abrupt conclusion, which felt more like the start of a film than the end. Arthur's adventure and search is tiresome and takes too long to get going, and there is too much of the father character, an important character but not that important. The live action scenes are still awkwardly staged and don't mesh particularly well with the animated sequences, while the dialogue lacks freshness or flow with some ill-judged and timed comic relief. Maltarzard, one of the first film's stronger characters, is a very weak villain this time round, here a character that is under-utilised and underwritten. Jimmy Fallon is even more irritating here now the material is weaker, Snoop Dogg fares better but also struggles. Will.i.am is out of place, but the worst case was Lou Reed, who sounds really bored and monotone. No attempt whatsoever is made to make Maltarzard sound like he did in Arthur and the Invisibles, and his character design here might leave youngsters who saw this film without seeing the first traumatised. In conclusion, not a truly terrible film but really not that great or good either. 4/10 Bethany Cox
-
elidirkx24 December 2009While the original film wasn't exactly a masterpiece either, this one digs lower. And I can't say it's an improvement. The music is corny. The titular villain only appears pretty late in the film. The characters are sideshows, most of them. I really can't say I liked very much about this film at all. Then again, perhaps it IS a plague when considering they decided to make a book into a 90-minute film, but I don't know. This whole film, to me, felt like an unnecessary sideshow, and the ending doesn't help it at all. Maybe a rental when it's available, but otherwise don't bother. This was a bigger disappointment than Terminator: Salvation even if watched with lower expectations.
-
I loved the first two books in Luc Besson's 'Arthur and the Minimoys' series, and I felt the American version of the movie was fine, if lacking in some crucial scenes. Sadly, the last two books in the series have never been released in the U.S., so I never actually got to find out what happened in them. However, I bought the DVD just to see if they were any good in film form. Sadly, the second film does not hold up. While the first film was far from flawless, it did feel like a self-contained story. Here, however, you can tell that events have just been strung along with little consequence just to fill time and make room for the third movie. For example, it's established that after Maltazard fled at the end of the first movie, someone else took his thrown, isolated his kingdom, and sent their own soldiers out to get in Arthur's way. Who is this person? What are his goals? I have no idea. We never find out in either of the sequels. The only reason this is brought up is so that random henchmen can chase Arthur for a little while. Not to mention that Arthur's search for Selenia and the bearer of the message gets tiresome quickly. It's all basically filler until the end when Maltazard FINALLY shows up (with a completely new voice who sounds nothing like David Bowie, I might add), to reveal that he plans to trap Arthur in the Minimoy world while he becomes human size. One thing I can't help but find ridiculous is the fact that while the shrinking/growing process on human characters changes them back and forth between Minimoy and human, if it's a Minimoy character, they still look the same when they get bigger. So really, all they did was take the threat from the first movie, and apply it to the regular world. It still doesn't change very much. This movie just felt unnecessary, and if you skip to the third, you won't miss much.
-
anomalza26 January 2016May contain spoilers!!
I found this to be incredibly inconsistent with the first installment. The characters were so altered in their personality and voice that it had nearly no connection to the first movie at all. Selenia was a strong-willed heiress on a mission in the first movie and now a prissy swooning damsel in distress. Betamish somehow got more annoying, and Arthur's family was.... corny. Maltazard, although defeated and ran for refuge in the first movie was still a watered monotone version of what he once was. I'm not even going to bother wasting my time on the third installment. I don't recommend it. -
vathraq23 January 2023So I watched the first "sequel" in this Arthur series Which turned out even worse than the first.
The female "lead" has gone from a b*d*ss warrior princess to a literal love-sick schoolgirl (what we saw of her.)
There's a scene where a character blows air horns to make a couple of girl's skirts lift up just so that he can get a look at their knickers... in a children's film.
I don't mind a little subtle adult humour in films for kids, that's how we promote family movie nights. But do we want to teach little boys that it's okay to blow up girl's skirts for a glimpse at their underwear? Or teach little girls that they should be fine receiving that treatment?
When they finally GET to the story it just ends with "to be continued."
I never thought I'd give a bad rating to a kids movie. -
Really enjoyed the first one(the french dubbed one, with all the scenes intact) and enjoyed the second one as well. Fun movie, funny humor(it's not tenacious d funny, I mean come on It's a still a kids movie). Watch in french with English subbs, sounds better and makes a whole lot of sense cause the animated segments are made by french people(They recorded it in the suits, with all their gestures and stuff, and were originally made in french, and you can notice this(in all of the movies) cause they speak really fast, and if you watched french movies ever in your life, you'd know they have a fast tempo. Fun, enjoyable and easy to watch movie, i recommend it to kids as well as older people Enjoy :)
-
konrad-296-15261627 August 2022Of all the movies I have seen, and that is quite a few since I am a projectionist at a cinema, this must be one of the most pointless movies ever made. It is just the fist half of a story that is finished in the sequel movie, Arthur 3, but it could easily have been cut down to around 10 minutes and included in the next movie instead. There are so many pointless scenes and so little actually contributing to the story. At least it is only pointless and not outright agonisingly bad, which saves it from getting a 1* rating. I would recommend skipping this one and just watch the recap that the next movie starts with instead.
-
muabusalah18 January 2010I took my daughters to the cinema and was very disappointed with this disgusting movie. I t was a waste of time and money. I don't advise anyone to waste his time and money to go and watch such movie. There is no story for the movie the mix of the animation and real people was not good. the characters they used in the animation are very ugly. Very cheap movie. All events are not connected, my kids fear the movie and did not enjoy it. For future work please consider that who are watching the movie are humans, the production is very cheap I bit the cost of production was too low. This movie is not suitable nor for kids neither for adults.
-
RECB330 March 2024I am not sure at all if I understand what the crew were thinking and trying to do when they were creating this film. This film was confusing and disappointing and did not make any sense at all. The storyline of this film was poor and weak and did not have any real direction at all. The cast selection was alright enough but could have been a lot better and stronger. They did not at all commit nor connect to the storyline nor to their respective characters. There was not any sign of real chemistry throughout this film between the cast members. The crew should never have created this poor and weak film.
-
eliara3715 September 2022I saw this at cinemas as a kid, and was disappointed to realize that it is only part 1 out of 2. I must say it is good though now looking back to it and knowing this fact. I feel like the parents got more of a personality and you actually like them now. They also like the kid more for a change. I think they blended reality with fantasy in a perfect way, there was was harmony which made you relax and actually enjoy it. Ofc if you nitpicking it you can always find something, but if you are only wanting to enjoy the ride with your kids, it is welldone. Many new aspects and fun additions to the world. Compared to the first movie I would say it held up great. But be prepared they will want to see the next part because the story did not get far and to actually get the full storyline you need to see both parts.
-
gafasa6 April 2020A very well animation with perfect designed characters. I watched it tens of time when I was a Child.
-
This is a 2 part movie. The first part was released in Dec of 09 and the second part was released in Feb 2010. If you don't like the ending watch the second part which unlike Harry Potter took only 3 months to be released. Also just so you know there are maybe 3 scenes uptight parents will not like. There are hundreds of scenes in Shrek I would not let my child see. Movie was great and WOW entertaining if you watch both parts of the movie as a whole. Cannot believe this movie was made in France did you see the A star list of cast in the Original. Madonna, Robert Dinero, Mia Farrow, Snoop Dogg, Jimmy Fallon and Freddie Highmore is amazing. This film neither looks or feels the part of any B movie or any Indie Film. The effects for the budget were Awesome. I cannot believe it's getting such horrible reviews. Some of you need to re-watch the crap Disney and Pixar are putting out and the subliminal messages they pursue. Anyways I hope this review at least makes you look at it. Watch the first movie if you haven't seen it then watch the second and third sequentially or else you will be mad at the seconds ending.
-
prendj017 November 2014For those that are used to Luc Bessons work this will not be a disappointment. I can only say that the other reviewers of this film have gone into it with their expectations way to high or I was watching a completely different film to them. This is not Disney or Pixar and if you don't go into this expecting that then you it will not disappoint you. Other reviewers completely missed the point that the adult actors are supposed to behave like cartoon villain's.
The animation and creativity is top notch and the story feels half finished only because it is meant to be watched as part of a trilogy. Do yourself a favor and ignore the negative reviews. Give this film a shot but watch it as part of the trilogy as intended and you will be very pleasantly entertained. I will agree that this is a kids film for adults and I would recommend it for ages 8/9 and up.
All in all a thoroughly entertaining production.