Arthur and the Great Adventure (2009)

I 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.

Fmovies: For 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.

The bad omens start even before the beginning of the movie: the original title Arthur et la Vengeance de Maltazard assumes that we know or we are interested in who the mentioned Maltazard is. I guess that he was the villain in the original Arthur et les Minimoys, a movie I did not like and which I immediately erased from my memory. The only thing I remember about that film is my huge disappointment of thinking that that would be "director Luc Besson's last film", who obviously went out of retirement in order to keep torturing to those of us who once enjoyed films like La Femme Nikita and The Professional, which (in my humble opinion) changed the face and the popular perception of French cinema.

Arthur et la Vengeance de Maltazard is a genuinely atrocious and execrable film. The animation is very badly done, and the design of the characters is disgusting and unoriginal. But the biggest problem from this film is the disastrous screenplay, full of dull dialogs, weak action routines and antipathetic comedy. Worse yet, the abrupt ending is to be continued, in order to get solved in the third movie from this franchise. That feels like an authentic slap in the spectator's face, specially after the film makes us to loose a lot of the time with irrelevant scenes. What was the purpose of all that filler? Wouldn't have it been better to cut it in order to tell all the story into one movie? Well, I guess the answer to that questions is simply due to marketing reasons.

In summary, Arthur et la Vengeance de Maltazard is an incredibly vomiting and pathetic movie, which belongs to the collection of indulgent whims created to please the sons of famous directors. Or at least, I think that is the explanation why pieces of crap like Hook (from Steven Spielberg), The Adventures of Sharkbboy and Lavagirl 3- D (from Robert Rodriguez), How the Grinch Stole Christmas (from Ron Howard) and Arthur et la Vengeance de Maltazard were made. Messrs. directors: next time, it would be better if you bought a bike, an iPad, or a private jet to your sons, and avoid us the torture of watching your "family projects" if you do not know how to make them.

Arthur and the Great Adventure fmovies. 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.

Arthur 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

While 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.