Arthur and the Revenge of Maltazard

It’s clear virtually from the outset that Arthur and the Revenge of Maltazard is going to fare about as well as its underwhelming predecessor, as the movie, which admittedly does possess its share of compelling elements, is ultimately undone by its similarly uneven atmosphere and emphasis on juvenile shenanigans. The storyline follows Freddie Highmore’s Arthur as he once again journeys into the land of the Minimoys after receiving what he thinks is a distress call, although, as he soon discovers, the message was not sent by his friends down under but rather the feared Maltazard (Lou Reed) – as the evil emperor has hatched a plan to bring his unique brand of villainy to our world. As was the case with Arthur and the Invisibles, Arthur and the Revenge of Maltazard fares best in its live action sequences – as filmmaker Luc Besson has infused such moments with an over-the-top panache that compensates for the movie’s excessively kid-oriented sensibilities. The watchable vibe persists right up until Arthur is miniaturized and sent to the Minimoys’ domain, after which point it does become harder and harder to work up any real interest or enthusiasm in the character’s exploits – with the almost unreasonably low-rent computer animation exacerbating the movie’s progressively less-than-involving feel. And although some of the character designs and voice performances are admittedly rather striking, Arthur and the Revenge of Maltazard peters out significantly as it limps towards its unabashedly open conclusion – as Besson spends far too much time on events of a decidedly insignificant nature (ie Selenia, Arthur’s love interest, prepares for the return of her beloved). It is, in the final analysis, impossible not to wonder what continues to draw Besson to this flawed premise, and the series seems highly unlikely to improve in its third (and hopefully final) installment.

** out of ****