Arthur and the Invisibles (2007)

this movie is reminiscent of an old American cartoon called the littles. this movie is slow at the start, set in the united states, when it should have ben set in the English country side, all in all the best I can give it is, it's nice, nothing spectacular but nice, worth a watch at least once.

The film, to start with- escaladed very quickly into the adventure sequence which is great because I love kids adventure flicks for that same reason. The only problem I find with the plot is the blatant "bar" scene with Rastafarians while the three main characters have a green spewing drink. Its completely okay in the film and the characters get intoxicated like its nothing- note that the main character who turns into a Minimoy is actually a twelve year old. Its terribly unsuitable for young children and I would never show the film to anyone under 15 because of it.Aside for that scene, and if you ignore how unrealistic and sexual the female lead's body is, its actually entertaining, unpredictable and kind of adorable.

My Take: Flat story-telling and animation wastes its good intentions.You'd either love Luc Besson's own hand work or hate how cheaply done the final product is. I however, is swimming right there at the middle. ARTHUR AND THE INVICIBLES (also known in its French title ARTHUR ET LESS MINIMOYS) is not a bad film, considering that it's only simple-minded family in heart and in form. The starting premise is fine for family film standards: An adventurous little boy tries to save his Grandma's house by searching for a lost treasure, a strain of rubies, possibly hidden in their yard by his grandfather. To do that, he is shrunk into bedbug-size and joins a couple of sprite-like nymphs called Minimoys, while also avoiding that hands of an evil tyrant, bent of course to take over the latter clan.For a film bent for the young in the audience, the premise is quite appealing, and the writers probably had quite fun developing the story. Now, just throw in a bunch of talented people including director Besson, Mia Farrow, David Bowie, Emilio Estevez, Madonna (that's for singing, not for acting), and a couple others and you've got a certified finished product which the kids will want to see, and adults may want to get a good look at it. But sadly, it's in the delivery that ARTHUR AND THE INVICIBLES gets robbed of its goodness. What might have been an imaginative film turns into a rather lacking and missing film that will still appeal to the younger set, but might get a sort of odd response to the adults. While the kids will delight the hyperactive energy (not to mention a totally messed-up storyline), adults will take it as a sort of irritation. As energetic and plushy as it is, telling the story couldn't have been worse.CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY star Freddie Highmore (much older than he used to be) plays Arthur, and truth-be-told, this kid has a future in acting. His performance (before being turned into a rather forgettable animated Minimoy) is impressive, especially for a young actor that isn't a regular in the newspapers yet (I did say yet). Not to mention the ensemble: Mia Farrow plays his grandmother (and even for a minor role, Farrow proves she's on the top of her game), David Bowie voices the evil Maltazard, the evil dictator-of-sorts to a rival clan, Robert DeNiro and Harvey Keitel are also given quite a few number of dubbing jobs to a few characters. Hell, even Madonna has something to offer to a role meant for someone much younger than her (a young, stubborn Princess, this should be played by, like, a teen star or something) offers quite a few number of sparkle.But much of the problem lies on how it turns out as a film. What sounds like a good idea on set is now a rather meandering and appalling missed opportunity on screen. The story (did I mention it was actually quite good?) as much to hyper to make much sense, the animation (while I wasn't exactly expecting Pixar-quality products) looked like a bunch of annoying (as in overly cute) robots made to look like Brats dolls and unlike better family films of the kind, ARTHUR rarely appeals to the adults in the audience. Once you spot the talents in charge on film, once you spot Madonna as a spoil princess of Robert De Niro as a Minimoy king, much of the time for you is over. ARTHUR AND THE INVICIBLES may make a worthy rental of the pip-squeaks, but don't expect anything to catch your eye.Rating: ** out of 5.

I've only seen the last 35 minutes and 10 minutes between Freddie becoming a minimoy and meeting the king but i think i've seen enough to say that it's not worth seeing the whole thing, I have given this confusing garbage a 1 for every good point it has.1. The animation is simply incredible, you could only find better graphics if it were made by the makers of Final Fantasy.2. David Bowie very much suited his character.3. Selnia or whatever was, as it was probably intended, very hot.4. It was very creative.here are six bad points to the movie that i couldn't overlook.1. The vocal cast was awful, and there were too many lines given to so many minor cases like Bowie's army guys all grunting over who takes the credit.2. Could anyone point out someone in the cast whose had acting experience? Like Madonna's Princess Lea impersonation when she fought Bowie, you know, that part in the first Star Wars you hear a Posh well spoken accent from Lea when adressing Darth Vader but as soon as she meets Luke it transforms into some kind of Californian thing.3. This happens in most animations, I call it The Slip+Slide Scene, this is a particular scene where for no reason the characters find this unbelievably huge slope and fall down it facing certain death but always survive, in this case it's where Arthur and Co drive a toy racecar and they slip+slide down these tunnels to get back home, it's just a thing that i really don't like, we've seen it in Ratatouille, happy feet, surfs up, it's just lazy writing.4. Didn't Arthur go through the telescope during a full moon? then how come he could go back during a sunny day.5. Does no one question the polar bear thing the king was originally stuck to, i don't think we saw many of them in the movie.6. I never saw the whole thing but did that sword actually do anything?