Arthur and the Invisibles 2: Arthur and the Revenge of Maltazard - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Arthur and the Invisibles 2: Arthur and the Revenge of Maltazard Reviews

Page 2 of 7
½ October 8, 2011
Not bad, some bits were kind of funny and cool but I some of it didn't seem too suitable for kids
Super Reviewer
October 5, 2011
This movie was 2hrs long with nothing inside. You'll feel like it's empty. What did they tried to make out of it? Total waste of time (except the part where Arthur had to go back in other way, that looked pretty painful).
September 28, 2011
Not bad for a combination of animated & realistic characters.
½ August 7, 2011
Filler between 1 and 3 I think...pretty bad.
½ August 6, 2011
Tres y media por la animacion y ya jeje
July 25, 2011
one of those movies that are classic family films, a joy to watch! the trilogy is one of the best animated to live action feature lying around in my massive collection. Love how this film ends in a cliffhanger so that the story connects with the third film.
June 30, 2011
(** 1/2): Thumbs Down
½ June 26, 2011
It was an ok sequel. It seemed to not have a storyline to it. Also Maltazard did not come into the movie until around one hour and 15 minutes. Hoping that the third one will be better.
½ June 21, 2011
A violation of the movie itself.
June 6, 2011
I didn't see the first one, but the kids liked this one.
½ June 6, 2011
Animation was good. Entertaining for my little girl. Better than some other crappy kids movies out there.
½ June 3, 2011
The first movie was ok, but this is not even close to good.
May 29, 2011
This unwarranted sequel completely undoes all of the good work done in the original. The animation is great - shame its wasted on such a ridiculously plotted mess that must have been dictated by a four year old.
May 27, 2011
for "critics" it would be a disaster.. but i love these movies cuz they make me really happy... the way it ended tho was weird... but i still enjoyed it :)
½ May 27, 2011
Cute family movie, if you've seen the first movie, Arthur and the Invisibles, it makes this much easier to understand considering it's a sequel. There isn't really an ending, which is the only thing I didn't like about it.
May 21, 2011
what a weeeird sequel!!..the entire 2hr movie has no plot, and finally at the end when it kicks in, the movie just ends and cuts to black. i guess i cant judge til i see the third part.. but definatly not as good as the original.
½ May 21, 2011
whata weeeeirrrd sequel! the movie just ends abruptly right when the plot kicks in... i guess i cant judge until i see the 3rd part, but definatly not as good as the first film.
½ May 11, 2011
Dà (C)cevant! Histoire bof, personnages changà (C)s mais en moins bien... je prà (C)fère me dire que le 1er opus à (C)tait un film à part et qu'il n'a pas de suite.
½ May 10, 2011
i could not hate with movie more
½ April 24, 2011
One has to see this movie as what it is: the middle part of a trilogy and more or less a bridge to the big events... And as such it works, even if the storyline is not the strongest one in this one. But still its charming and playful, even spiritual. Its just a shame that Besson did not take care enough, if this movie could stand alone, which obviously: it cant! I think a good "bridge" between the beginning and the end of a great tale has still to be good enough in its own right, to please you. And here "Arthur 2" weakens, but is still more entertaining and funnier than some of the stuff coming out of the US movie factories... It got heart and soul and a message. And yes: I look forward for part 3!
Page 2 of 7