wasn't ANYONE confused by the following things that didn't make sense?

Having just seen this movie, I am amazed at the number of critics that panned it. I thought it was brilliant. The entire "upland to minimoy world" transition reminded me more than anything else of the creative use of color
to mark Dorothy's transition into the magical realm of Oz in the original film.

From the comments I've read, I'm now determined to get my hands on the more complete French version. The explanation about the Developer trying to steal the rubies made so much sense, and cleared up one of my personal puzzlements - when they showed the police car driving away in the American version, its sirens are shown inexplicably on. I also find myself wanting to read the books.

My take on the statues/Giant African Tribesmen thing was that in order to complete the ritual, Arthur had to place a statue at each of the points marked on the tarp. I assumed that they were intended to symbolically represent the tribesmen. Possibly, and I'm guessing here, as the moment of the portal opening would approach, the real tribesmen would be magically transported to the location of the statues? Either that or when the statues were broken, they were teleported there to fulfill that role in person. We are talking about "Magic" here, and a fantasy setting. The other thing to consider is that the tribesmen may have come to Arthur on their own, since their leader seems to stress the importance of him getting to the Minimoy world even before Arthur says anything to him.

I really had no problem with the use of Madonna's voice - I didn't even know it
was her until I saw the credits. I think the whole idea behind having an older
woman voicing the Princess was that they wanted her to sound strong and independent, and not come across as a "little girl" or the sort of princess who
needs rescuing. The people who talked about it being "creepy" that this 40-
something voice is getting flirty with a 12 year old need to work on their "willing suspension of disbelief". Madonna isn't in the movie. Her voice is.
And the Princess, by her own admission, is not that much older than Arthur.

So how does that work? How do we reconcile this whole "minimoy to human years"
thing with the appearance of her physical body. I think its simple. Most really small creatures do not in fact have very long lifespans (sorry!) and theres no reason to think that the minimoy are any different. As a result, the
age at which short-lived creatures mature is MUCH younger than a human. Lets consider: if its true that there are 100 minimoy years in a human one, then
not only would the Princess be 10 years old, her little brother would be what?
Two and a half? Granted he acts a little immature at times, but he does say
something like "I'm almost a grown-up!" And the Princess is supposed to replace
her father on the throne when she has her birthday and reaches the ripe old age
of 10. And she further states that she will rule until her eldest child reaches
the age of 10. Doing the math, and making an assumption, the King is probably
only in his 20's. Clearly, like most little critters, Minimoys do not age gracefully. (There-in lies the dilemma of falling in love with one - its kind of like in the "Narnia" stories where you're gone to the real world for a week and come back to find that everyone you knew in Narnia has died of old age!)

So obviously...what she was trying to say to Arthur was that she was really only about 10 human years old in chronological age. Yet from her speech, behavior, skills, etc...we can see that she is a fully functioning minimoy adult. Now, does that raise the issue again of "isn't Arthur too young for her?" I would say no, since remember...they told Arthur "you're one of us now" suggesting
that in the eyes of Minimoy culture, he is an adult. Movies nowadays seem to
like to include this concept of kids falling in love super young. I agree its
improbable, but I think its done for the "cuteness factor". Anyone whose raised
kids of their own knows that at ten, the other gender is mostly just "yucky".

Lets see, what else. I did not have a problem with the fact that the minimoys
all looked different. We're applying a human standard of homogeneity to them.
If you look at portrayals of the creatures of Faerie across time, they come in a dizzying variety of shapes and sizes. Theres a word for that - when the members
of a species don't neccesarily resemble one another. Can't remember right now.

And like in so many stories of faeries, they are in tune with nature, and in general, get along with other small life forms. I didn't understand why the Princess attacked that caterpillar with the sword, since it seemed to be ignoring them (?!?) but insect life seemed to leave them alone, and they would
have been easy prey for LOTS of things. As a result, I just immediately assumed
that the older fellow with the missing son was a mole. He had the pointy nose,
the bad eyesight, oversized hands (did anyone notice he had on big gloves that
would have covered his digging claws). And I think when he spoke to Arthur about Mino, his son, he refered to him as a mole. So I just assumed the minimoys live in harmony with, and can magically communicate with, other small
creatures. Moles come in a lot of sizes, with some of the very smallest types,
and other species that are similar to moles, being only a couple inches long.
Thats still bigger than a minimoy, but there were alot of times in this movie
(like in most stories where tiny creatures use salvaged human items) that their
scale seemed to fluctuate. The car was perfect in size for them, yet Evil-M's
soldiers seemed to be using straight-pins for swords, and in the Disco the tables were made out of buttons. Also, Nimo looked alot bigger when he was sitting on the "Ruby Throne" than he did when Arthur looked at him through the
magnifying glass. You have to be willing to overlook that kind of stuff.
Could anyone figure out what Evil M's servants were using for those "bombs"
they were dropping, or for the chainsaw-like things?

As far as the presence of Snoop Dog, I admit he seemed about as out-of-place
as the moment when the young prince had what looked like a light-saber coming out of his swiss-army-knife-gadget. And yet the Rastafarian character was amusing to me. I think the drink scene was intended for the adults in the audience, as were several moments in the whole dance sequence: I'm hoping the average young child hasn't seen Pulp Fiction! Yet the likelihood that it was
an alcohol/drug is nil. The stuff was being secreted by a bug! I assumed that Arthur's reaction was to the taste!

Anyway, if you can't tell, I thought the movie was a blast, and would love to
discuss it with other fans. Oh, and I have to ask, does the French version give
any insight into the fate of M? Because I noticed he seemed to get away...



Why did Arthur's character not resemble him more closely? Hmmm...I have to admit that was a conundrum for me. I was especially amused by the transport
operator calling him "Dandelion" because thats what I thought his head resembled: one of those white puffs kids love to blow on! Maybe they wanted to
stress that he wasn't just being "shrunk" he was being fundamentally changed into a different kind of being. For all I know, maybe the Chosen One always has silvery white hair! But mostly I just assumed he resembled the French voice actor that did his voice.

[deleted]

its actually 1960
but ya that was 70s and 80s music lmmfao
actually when freddie recorded the voice he was 12
and arhtur was 10
so no, i dont see a problem with that
go douche i can smell you from over here

i called her on the phone and she touched herself, i laughed myself to sleep

[deleted]

In the movie Arthur was very nervous about that, until he asks the princes what would be his age in Minimoys years.. and she tells him they about the same age...

I thought of that when Arthur threw the baseball!!!!!!!
I think I might have said something to my mom but I don't remember.
Yes, it was a beautiful movie.
Maybe Mino knew to get on the rubbies.
But stuff like this is in a *beep* load of movies.

PAINT IT GREEN!

Was definitely confused and somewhat grossed out by the characters in the (what looked like they were trying to outdo the StarWars bar scene) disco scene which was also wrong year...some shots looked like male nudity, the green concoction etc had a bit too much reference to DOPE. With Snoop Dog being transported to 1960 it's TOO MuCH PC Crap and shouldn't have been in there at all. Superfluous. Unnecessary. Excessive.
Also the entire movie was excessively frenetic and speeded up, like the director was on meth. Almost too fast to comprehend so why not slow it down; our kids are hyper enough already. And don't say it's because it's in french. I still give it a 6 but could have been so much better. Freddie is a jewel but he's even getting long in the tooth. 'Bout time for him to do a Jim Hawkins, everybody else does.