Luc Besson is a bit of a madman. I mean that in the best way possible, obviously. But if you look at the trajectory of his career, moving from the gritty, neon-soaked streets of Leon: The Professional to a whimsical, semi-animated trilogy about tiny elves living in a backyard, you have to wonder what was in the water in France back in 2009. That brings us to Arthur and the Revenge of Maltazard. It’s a weird movie. It’s a polarizing movie. Honestly, it’s a movie that basically functions as one giant, ninety-minute prologue for a third film that most people didn't even realize was coming.
The film dropped into a very specific era of European cinema. Besson’s studio, EuropaCorp, was swinging for the fences, trying to prove that France could produce a high-budget, CG-hybrid franchise that could go toe-to-toe with the likes of Pixar or DreamWorks. Did it work? Well, that depends on who you ask. If you're looking at the box office numbers in France, it was a smash. If you’re looking at the confused faces of American audiences who were expecting a self-contained adventure, the story is a little different.
The Problem With Being a "Middle Child"
Every trilogy has a middle chapter. Usually, that chapter—think The Empire Strikes Back—is where the stakes get raised and the characters are tested. But Arthur and the Revenge of Maltazard takes a very different approach. It’s almost stubbornly leisurely. The plot follows Arthur, played again by Freddie Highmore (before he was a "Good Doctor"), as he waits for the moon to reach the right position so he can return to the land of the Minimoys.
He’s desperate to see Selenia. He’s stuck dealing with his somewhat eccentric parents, played by Robert Stanton and Penny Balfour, who are arguably more cartoonish than the actual animated characters. The pacing is deliberate. Some might say slow.
Most of the runtime is spent on the "getting there." There’s a whole subplot involving a spider, a journey through a transit system, and a lot of world-building that feels more like a tour of a theme park than a traditional narrative. When Maltazard finally shows up—voiced in the English version by Lou Reed, replacing David Bowie from the first film—the movie basically ends. It’s a cliffhanger in the truest, most frustrating sense of the word.
📖 Related: Big Brother 27 Morgan: What Really Happened Behind the Scenes
The Casting Carousel and the Voice Acting Legacy
One thing people always forget about this franchise is the sheer level of star power Besson recruited. In the first film, we had Bowie as the villain. Transitioning to Lou Reed for Arthur and the Revenge of Maltazard was a choice. Reed brings a raspier, perhaps more cynical edge to the "Evil M," which fits the character's transition from a banished spirit to a literal giant in the human world.
Then you’ve got Snoop Dogg.
Yes, Snoop Dogg is in this movie. He plays Max, a character who runs a club in the Minimoy world. It’s the kind of casting that feels very 2009—a "cool" celebrity cameo meant to bridge the gap between European fantasy and American hip-hop culture. It’s jarring. It’s bizarre. And yet, it sort of works within the neon-lit, slightly psychedelic aesthetic that Besson loves to play with. Fergie from the Black Eyed Peas also lends her voice as Replay. It’s a time capsule of late-2000s pop culture, stuffed into a story about a kid in a khaki outfit.
Visuals That Still Hold Up (Mostly)
Let’s be real: the CG in Arthur and the Revenge of Maltazard was actually ahead of its time for a non-Hollywood production. BUF Compagnie, the French VFX house, did some incredible work. They didn't go for realism. They went for a tactile, toy-like quality. The way the light hits the Minimoys' skin—which looks sort of like velvet or soft peach fuzz—is still impressive.
👉 See also: The Lil Wayne Tracklist for Tha Carter 3: What Most People Get Wrong
The contrast between the "real world" and the "Minimoy world" is the film's strongest asset. Besson uses a hyper-saturated color palette for the 1960s American countryside. It looks like a postcard. Then, when we shrink down, the world becomes a jungle of blades of grass and discarded human trash turned into architecture. It’s creative. You can see the influence of Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, but with a distinctly European, almost "art-nouveau" flair.
Why the US Release Was a Mess
If you’re in the States and you remember being confused by this movie, there’s a reason. The distribution was a nightmare. While the first film got a decent push from the Weinstein Company, the sequels were treated like afterthoughts. In some regions, Arthur and the Revenge of Maltazard and the third film, Arthur 3: The War of the Two Worlds, were edited together or released straight to video.
This fractured release schedule killed any momentum the franchise had. You can't really blame the audience for being checked out when the middle chapter of a story doesn't actually conclude its own primary conflict. It’s a bold move to end a family film on a "To Be Continued" screen, and for many, it felt less like a narrative choice and more like a lack of content.
The Maltazard Twist
The ending is where things get genuinely interesting. Maltazard tricks Arthur, uses the telescope to travel to the human world, and grows to seven feet tall. It’s a classic "monster in the small town" setup. The visual of this spindly, pale villain standing in the middle of a picturesque American backyard is actually pretty striking.
✨ Don't miss: Songs by Tyler Childers: What Most People Get Wrong
It shifts the genre. Suddenly, we aren't in a fantasy adventure anymore; we're in a creature feature. This transition is what the entire movie was building toward, but because it happens in the final five minutes, many viewers felt cheated. They spent an hour watching Arthur navigate a busy Minimoy city only to have the actual "revenge" of the title last about as long as a commercial break.
The Realism of the "Besson-verse"
There is a weird groundedness to the human scenes that contrasts sharply with the animation. Arthur’s grandfather, played by the legendary Ron Webb (filling in for various roles across the series' development), provides a sense of gravitas. The film deals with themes of environmentalism and the encroachment of "progress" on nature, though it’s buried under layers of slapstick humor.
Besson has always been obsessed with the idea of a secret world existing right under our noses. Whether it's the aliens in The Fifth Element or the underworld in Angel-A, he loves the "hidden in plain sight" trope. In Arthur and the Revenge of Maltazard, this manifests as the tension between Arthur’s desire to be a hero in a magical land and his parents' desire for him to just be a normal kid who goes to dinner on time. It’s a relatable struggle, even if his parents are written with the subtlety of a sledgehammer.
Actionable Takeaways for Modern Viewers
If you’re planning on revisiting the world of the Minimoys or showing it to a new generation, keep these points in mind:
- Watch them back-to-back: Do not watch Arthur and the Revenge of Maltazard as a standalone film. It is essentially "Part 1" of a much longer story. You absolutely need Arthur 3: The War of the Two Worlds queued up and ready to go the moment the credits roll.
- Appreciate the Craft: Look past the sometimes-clunky dialogue. The character designs and the "macro" cinematography are top-tier. Pay attention to how the film handles scale; it's one of the few movies that actually makes you feel the weight of a giant drop of water or the danger of a common household insect.
- Look for the French Cut: If you can find it, the original French version (with subtitles if you aren't fluent) often feels more tonally consistent. The English dubs were frequently edited for pace and sometimes lost the whimsical, slightly darker edge that Besson intended.
- Context Matters: Remember that this was produced at a time when traditional hand-drawn animation was dying and everyone was trying to find the "next big thing" in 3D. It’s a fascinating relic of that experimental phase in global cinema.
The legacy of the film is complicated. It’s a movie that tried to do too much and ended up feeling like not enough. But for those who appreciate Luc Besson’s specific brand of visual storytelling, there’s still plenty to love in this strange, tiny world. The ambition alone makes it worth a second look, even if the "revenge" part takes its sweet time to actually arrive.
To fully understand the scope of the project, one should look into the production of the third film immediately after finishing the second. The two were filmed almost simultaneously to save on costs and maintain the child actors' appearances, which explains why the second film feels so much like a bridge rather than a destination. Tracking down the "making of" featurettes can also provide a lot of insight into how BUF Compagnie managed to blend live-action sets with digital characters so seamlessly for the time.