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.

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.

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.

Didn'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!