Arthur and the Invisibles (2007)

The first must-see film of the year.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

That is personal opinion of course. There are things to admire about Arthur and the Invisibles but the flaws that are brought up by those who didn't like the film are valid. The best thing is the animation, which is great, with lots of beautiful colours(bright and colourful as well as dark and foreboding) and detail. The music fits very well too, the fantasy elements sparkle and the adventure ones rouse while it is also in a style accessible to the target audience(family). The action sequences are reasonably fun, exciting and well and inventively animated, if a few too many, the film's lessons and messages are good and don't feel preachy, and there are a few amusing and sweet moments, the grandfather's journal was a beautiful touch. Most of the voice acting/acting is commendable, faring best are a very likable Freddie Highmore and a sinister yet suave David Bowie. Chazz Palminteri and Jason Bateman shine in bit roles, and Snoop Dog is hilarious. In the live action parts Mia Farrow is appropriately kindly and compassionate. Robert De Niro is quite good also though deserving of more to do. Not all the acting is entirely successful, Jimmy Fallon is annoying and Madonna trying to sound younger than she actually is takes some getting used to. Harvey Keitel is pretty wasted in an underwritten role that does nothing for his talents. The live action parts are rather awkwardly written and staged, and the narration feels out of place and not really that unnecessary. David Suchet though does do a nice job admittedly. The dialogue has its moments, but can feel trite and under baked, while the story can have a tendency to move too fast. With more room to breathe it could have been developed more and elaborated more on some its ideas, which were good ones that were at times somewhat of a convoluted muddle. The characters are likable but not much more. Overall, Arthur and the Invisibles' good points were great but with a stronger story and writing it could have been more. 5/10 Bethany Cox

I first purchased the version made for England, locally as a second hand DVD. It was a speculative purchase, it seemed like it might be okay.I liked it, but mostly when I re-watched it I started from when Arthur was preparing to go into the Minimoys' land and ended at the start of the journey to Necropolis.I noticed that many UK reviews either were not impressed or considered that the French soundtrack was way superior. Those views did not make much sense to me.I then purchased the Blu-ray of Arthur And The Great Adventure and found it to be fairly empty. A wasted purchase. But I remembered the comment about the French language. It was a long shot, but I checked out the Arthur series in Amazon France and purchased the triple DVD box set from there. My plan was to listen in French but watch with the English subtitles on, just the subtitles are only in French so I put my disk set to one side.December, the horror season. For Christmas I decided to check through my disks for Barbie stuff that I had not watched much yet and I also added the Arthur set to the collection, together with seasons 3 and 4 of Trachenberg's Gossip Girl. Apart from bits of GG, Christmas turned into something other than horror. I do like Barbie movies.None of the Arthur disks from France were anything like the stuff that I purchased in England. Feature 1, Arthur Et Les Minimoys is longer and includes a different dialogue to the version for England. It gels as a story. I tend to watch it all the way through, not just the middle bit.My Blu-ray of Arthur And The Great Adventure turned out to be a weak edited version of the two remaining stories, Arthur Et La Vengeance De Maltazard (2009) and Arthur Et La Guerre Des Deux Mondes (2010). If I do not re-watch episode 1 so much is because I tend to head to these as well. I also look to the final 15 minutes of Arthur Et La Vengeance De Maltazard as that has a lead in to a magnificent end credits song.One big difference between the French and the English is the romance between the 10 year old Arthur and the thousand year old Selenia. In English one accepts that there is a romance because it says so, the French version shows it. It is a real romance type adventure story, in the first feature especially.From other reviews, I get the impression that the version made for France is the cinema release version that was shown in England.

Luc Besson's first ever foray into animation, and only second foray into film-making as a whole for six years, provides us with a curious little piece called Aruthr et les Minimoys. The film is not without its flaws nor annoyances, but overall I found it to be quite an enjoyable little romp through a number of subjects, issues and themes playing out under one of those umbrellas of live action mingling in with cartoon animation. The film offers wonderful entertainment for kids as it shoots along its fantastical route of warm, family infused environments; some threat in the form of an outside force attempting to put pay to the set up; an escape into an alternate universe in which a colourful array of characters and rules govern that particular space; as well as a series of animated scenes acting as sheer spectacle once the narrative has got rolling.The film is primarily concerned with a young boy and his escape from one world, or 'reality', into another. The case here is Freddie Highmore's titular role Arthur, a young and curiously English boy living in early 1960s rural America with his Grandmother, on a farm. In terms of friends and contact with those outside of his domain, his parents are nowhere and his Grandfather has been missing for a good while. As far as openings go, the child friendly setting of Arthur's farm is colourful, peaceful and set away from most other dangers creating a wide open space for Arthur to enjoy all by himself. He enjoys reading of his grandfather's exploits in foreign territory and is at a curious age in which the world around him is beginning to become more and more noticeable. This somewhat ideal setting is disrupted when some of those typically nasty suit-clad men arrive with the goal to shut the whole thing down. It turns out, the family have a few days to pay rather-a large sum of cash or face eviction.Armed with a developing brain; some might say a sprawling imagination and knowledge there is priceless treasure buried somewhere on the grounds that would pay off the debt, Arthur goes on a quest to uncover the truth and save the day. Arthur's transformation into a creature known as a 'Minimoy' as he burrows below the grounds of the farm and into an alternate world could quite easily be read into as a psychological 'escape' from one horrid situation into a dream-like Utopian setting. Only, both the transformation and study that worked so extraordinarily in the previous year's Pan's Labyrinth, isn't rendered quite as ambiguous this time round as the young lead attempts to escape from their predicament, and into a fabricated world which is further distilled by the horrors they're already living with. Besson even renders the villain of the piece here, Emperor Malthazar, voiced by David Bowie, as a sort of imitation of the Pale Man himself.Within this new world, Arthur is somewhat of a superhero; so much so that when the fatal and extremely dangerous quest is undertaken, it's deemed he's able to go it alone without the aid of any sort of backup nor guards of any description – just he and two select others. One of these is Princess Selenia (Madonna), the daughter of the leader of the Minimoys – a character that Arthur, up on surface level whilst in human form, took to somewhat in that innocent and young manner only he could, when he found her in cartoon form drawn on some paper and kissed it. Again, the lines between maddening reality and what would act perfectly fine as a out-and-out fantasy is toyed with when we assume the character of the princess and her appeal to him might be a fabrication of his own imagination.At worst, Arthur and the Invisibles a reasonably good child's fare that cracks along at a healthy pace. The trend of updating fairy stories and incorporating other texts and popular culture references, thus rendering the text of a post-modern kind is close to vacant, offering a refreshing change to a lot of other, recent animation films attempting to branch out to the widest possible audience. It's additionally refreshing to have a female character as strong as the lead, as she works with the lead, in their attempt to thwart evil; while I think there's a knowing element to the protagonist's task of having to rescue another character locked away in a dungeon - not a maiden but someone else this time. It's good to see a lead female in this type of film, not as a prize to be rescued and won, but as an action infused side-kick.Along the way, very basic but necessary ideas linked to team-work will sprout up with the aim to target any kids watching, I'm sure. There is also time for Besson to stamp an authoritarian and somewhat personal mark on the piece when a large-scale fight scene plays out at a disco. A recent reading of Susan Hayward's 1998 book on Besson sees her write about 'violence as performance' in Besson's films; acts that are often carefully choreographed within the film and thus resemble some sort of dance or performance: think the opening hit in Léon; the SWAT team assault during the finale of Léon as well as a certain fight scene in The Fifth Element involving Milla Jovovich's character, inter-cut with an operatic performance. Written before this film was made, similar sorts of ideas and aesthetics are played out once again by the Frenchman. But the film is no disaster on the whole. I'm don't think whatever rumoured or planned sequels are entirely necessary, as the tale; the ideas and messages have been explored here to the point of satisfaction. This is one for parents and kids alike looking for a break from the strenuous glut of Shrek films and others that feature talking animals.

I chose to watch this after i saw Kung Fu Panda. There is a thread in animation right now, one this Kung Fu animation fully clarified and established. That thread separates those who explore the possibilities of virtual space, and the ability to explore faces, expressions, virtual characters in which we recognize humanity though their complete abstraction. Besson has always impressed me for the way he explores spatial deepness, i always carry in my memories those dives in Fifth element, in the skyroads of that future, or the camera dives of Léon. He is a man who, before caring for films, cared for the sea, and dived. So he brought to films an expression of those sensations, he even filmed in his Atlantis.I came to this animation because i really really thought he would place that very personal vision served by the possibilities of animation. He didn't. Nevermind the story. It's never a strong point in Besson's creations, except for the fact that it gives him the possibility to exploit what he's interested in, which is to use his camera in novel ways. But the thing here is, he doesn't do that. There's nothing interesting about this. I want to think that he wasn't able to gain control over this new form of expression (which actually is quite dreadful, given the budget of this and the best animations being made nowadays). He might not have the right people working with him, and he may not have been able to control the medium. I'll look for the upcoming sequels, but this was a terrible disappointment. Besson can do better.My opinion: 1/5 http://www.7eyes.wordpress.com