leplatypus For no french people, imagine « doc brown » played by Denis Hooper for the sequels of « BTF » ! It would be a tragic, inappropriate casting that kills the magic of the movie and that's what happens there : it's funny to see that the opening scene exposing the previous story re-shots the scene exactly like « BTF » did it with the new Jennifer ! With this Robin, we have a big, sad potato playing, void of any talent, charm and who fails miserably to do what Lemercier excels ! She really destroys the movie or at least all the scenes she is involved ! You can see that there's much money in the production as the medieval scenes are really detailed ! It's fun to be back to the same locations and meet again the postman ! Sure, unlike « BTF », the time travels aren't not the opportunity to deepen the characters or their relationship as Reno and Clavier do exactly the same fun and chaos than previously ! I don't really understand the motive to this second travel : why Jacquouille just don't give back the necklace in 1193 or why the Duke is ill due to this missing necklace ? It isn't lost in time or in the future as it's hidden in 1193 ??? At the end, it's indeed a crippled sequel, yet funny but without any originality and just plagued by an hideous, unmotivated cave-girl !

MultiMediaHouse Les Visiteurs, the first movie about the medieval time travelers was actually funny. I like Jean Reno as an actor, but there was more. There were unexpected twists, funny situations and of course plain absurdness, that would remind you a little bit of Louis de Funes.Now this sequel has the same characters, the same actors in great part and the same time traveling. The plot changes a little, since the characters now are supposed to be experienced time travelers. So they jump up and down in history, without paying any attention to the fact that it keeps getting absurder as you advance in the movie. The duke, Jean Reno, tries to keep the whole thing together with his playing, but his character has been emptied, so there's not a lot he can do to save the film.Now the duke's slave/helper, he has really all the attention. The movie is merely about him and his being clumsy / annoying / stupid or whatever he was supposed to be. Fact is; this character tries to produce the laughter from the audience, but he does not succeed. It is as if someone was telling you a really very very bad joke, you already know, but he insists on telling that joke till the end, adding details, to make your suffering a little longer.If you liked Les Visiteurs, do not spoil the taste in your mouth with the sequel. If you didn't like Les Visiteurs, you would never consider seeing the sequel. If you liked this sequel... well, I suppose you still need to see a lot of movies.

dbdumonteil In 1993, "the visitors" was an enormous hit in France. So, the sequence was inevitable and unfortunately, this sequence ranks among the worst ones ever made. This is a movie that doesn't keep its promises. Indeed, it's supposed to tell a sole story. Jean Reno must go in the twentieth century and take Christian Clavier back in the Middle Ages so that time can normally follow its course. The problem is that Clavier feels completely at ease in the world of the twentieth century, and so make him get back in the Middles Ages is rather hard... Instead of this, the movie goes on several other stories without succeeding in following the main plot. As a consequence, the movie becomes sometimes muddle-headed, sometimes a bit of a mess.But the movie also suffers from the performance of nearly all the actors. Reno and Clavier fall into the trap that however they could avoid in the first movie: they're going over the top and become annoying. Then, why did Jean-Marie Poiré the film-maker engage Muriel Robin in the female main role? He made a mistake because she seems ill-at-ease and is absolutely pitiful. The other actors aren't better: Marie-Anne Chazel is nonexistent and Christian Bujeau, unbearable. Of course, the movie contains a few good moments with efficient gags but it often falls into vulgarity and easiness. Certain sequences and dialogs are affected. It also appears hollow because Poiré takes back elements that secured the success of the first movie. Thus, a young girl takes Reno for a close relative of her family and asks him to take part in her wedding.A labored and disappointing follow-up. Anyway, what's the interest of this movie otherwise commercial?

rhumpert Nice slapstick comedy. Has the usual flaw of this genre: May get tedious, exhaust the viewer. In flaws and jokes comparable to Leslie Nielson films, but French, which is a change as the humor is a bit different. Builds a nice whole with part 1, and hopefully part 3 in the future. Because of story, gags and differing style, recommended.