Asterix der Gallier

I wasn't expecting Pixar animation from a French cartoon from the Sixties, but I did expect the drawings to be a little more complex. It doesn't distract from the enjoyment of the movie but if you've ever seen some of the early Charlie Brown cartoons you'll find the stiff animation style quite familiar.

The story itself is very simple and involves an undercover Roman spying on the Gauls to learn the secret of their superhuman strength. We all know it's because of the magic potion but this first movie is very "entry level" so don't expect it to get any more complex than that. It is an almost direct adaptation of the comic-book, but a few of the character names have been changed, for example Getafix is now called Panoramix. I am glad they didn't follow through with these weird changes for the rest of the movies.

At a running time of less than 70 minutes there's not much time for a plot to develop but there are a decent amount of laughs and it's always fun to watch the hapless Romans get beaten up.

Thankfully, the animated Asterix never got any worse than this.

Watching "Asterix the Gaul" reinforced my conviction that its success in French theaters was mostly due to the popularity of the comic-book adventures, at its peak in 1967. At that time, the little Gaul was a national phenomenon whose iconic status expanded into the neighboring European countries. So, before reviewing the film, let's explore the secret of Asterix' appeal, the magic potion's recipe, to use a fitting metaphor.

First, there's the tough little guy who personifies the French touch. The seminal setting is a small tribe resisting the Roman invasion, representative of France under De Gaulle's leadership, a small country defying the American imperialism in the name of cultural exception. Yet beyond the political undertones, there was a comical genius named Goscinny heavily influenced by Anglo-Saxon humor made of slapstick, parodies and adult innuendo. And because there's no content without a form, there's Uderzo's drawing style, one of the most admired in the French-Belgian school, along with other talents like Franquin and Gotlib, renowned for the extraordinary fluidity and dynamism when it came to draw movements. The shot of a roman soldier vertically ejected through one single uppercut is one of Asterix' defining trademarks, making the cover of the first adventure: "Asterix the Gaul".

A punchy drawing for a punchy humor: nothing could have stopped the success story to reach the silver screen, only 8 years after the first publication in the magazine Pilote, a European combination of Mad and Marvel. The result is an objective disappointment and undermines any pretension to compete with American animation. Numbers never lie, in 1967, the film was viewed by 2,4 millions spectator against 14,7 for "The Jungle Book". Granted the film couldn't rival with Disney, but still, they could have made a better effort: the design of the Roman legionaries created an overabundance of gray and red, half the images were recycled, not to mention the horizontal movements worthy of the worst Hanna Barbera cartoons. To make it worse, the characters, who were all human, had four fingers, which is technical blasphemy, even by Disney standards.

At the end, the most graphically interesting part was the opening with the five major Gauls' drawing (notice that the English names are different probably because the film was made before the comic-book adaptation, to tell you how old the film is). The rest is just pure cheap animation, typical of the worst TV programs, colors are bland, Obelix is inexpressive, with two dots for eyes and a mouth mechanically moving when he speaks, Jules Caesar looks nothing like the imposing Emperor who already had his distinctive traits in the books. What saves the film is the quality of the dubbing and a catchy theme with a child-like quality that seems like imploring you not to be so harsh on the animation department. All right, I'll temper my criticism now that I have the music in mind. Besides, to say that the film's only weakness is the animation would make too much honor to the screenwriters.

The biggest problem is with the story, the first animated opus of Asterix' adventure could have got away with the rudimentary animation, but, why; of all the adventures, they picked up the least interesting story? Obelix plays no part during the whole third act, the starring duo was Asterix and the druid, the Romans were constantly ridiculed and the antagonist, Caius Bonus is so naive it's sometimes disconcerting. The gags are there, but the format of the story, perfect for a comic book or a TV episode, was stretched for almost one hour. And for the first time, the chauvinism seemed almost unintentional, the repetitive 'Hails to the Chief' whenever he spoke, made me cringe, even as a kid, especially since the character is supposed to be comical. And that's what the film clearly betrays, it feels as if it was not written by the authors.

And guess what? I found out that no René Goscinny or Albert Uderzo were ever consulted for the making of the film, and they learned about the project a few months later and didn't like it. I knew there had to be a reason for the script' laziness but at least, the authors' honor was left intact, and their disappointment urged to make another film, with better quality. "Asterix and Cleopatra" is everything "The Gaul" is not, it has terrific music, animation, escapism and at least, it respects the spirit of the album with some hilarious fourth-wall breaking gags that show that the author's ambitions were aimed toward the big screen. In "Cleopatra" they apologize in advance for the problems of dubbing, which is humor-wise light-years ahead of "The Gaul"'s inoffensive cuteness.

In conclusion, "The Gaul" isn't certainly as bad as my review implies, but heavily suffers from the comparison with its glorious successors. Its merit is to have put Asterix on screen, to have provided its eternal voice, to have grabbed the viewer's interest, but the authors knew it could have been a disaster for Asterix' future in cinema not to come with a new film, with higher quality, the flaws made the following films' strength. But it was a close one.

Although it doesn't do justice to the comic-book, it's still an Asterix movie and worth viewing, but unlike the others, it won't give you the urge to watch it again. Even Asterix' reactions after drinking the magic potion didn't have that electrifying pep we used to enjoy, the potion indeed lacked some spicy flavor.

Asterix & Obelix have both become fixtures of France's pop-culture scene (imagine if Bugs Bunny and Superman were in the same package via Asterix), and this film was the first foray into the world of cinema for the Gauls fighting the 'Crazy Romans' of 50 B. C. And this film's somewhat troubled production and Goscinny-Uderzo's disapproval of the final print didn't help matters much, but it DID help guarantee that all subsequent Asterix films were of better quality in terms of the animation and writing.

Asterix the Gaul is relevant to French animation history, but it doesn't prove itself the strongest introduction to the medium exactly. The years since this film came out kind of proves the behind-the-scenes dramas definitely changed the trajectory for the franchise going forward, and it did change things for the best. And it's good that it did: because the Asterix stories are good comical action-adventures giving fun twists that on European history.

Honestly this film is a starting point for an iconic character, but as a first impression kind of thing it does leave some things to be desired, and the following films are more fun because of the more refined takes on the mythos of the characters and much more fluid animation. Sure this one has that awkward 1960s-animation energy that was well-defined on television circa Hannah-Barbera stuff and the infamous Beatles cartoon series, but for cinema Disney made this stuff seem downright amateurish and cheap for silver screens.

6/10 IMDbs. 3/5 stars. Watchable stuff but definitely a flawed 'classic'. For fans of Asterix it's incredibly important, but for casuals it's an easy skip.

Asterix is the hero of the only French village to hold out against the might of Rome. The village achieves this with the use of a magic potion that gives superhuman strength, made by druid Panaramix. However a roman spy discovers this and kidnaps the druid, leaving Asterix to rescue him.

One of the first Asterix films and sets a solid standard for the rest. The story remains quite faithful to the book and even manages to have quite a lot of the pun and wit. It's not rocket science, but for fans it's important. A minor complaint is that many of the characters don't use the same names that are used in the English books. So here we have the chief called Tonnabrix, the bard called Stopthemusix and Getafix called Panaramix

The animation is solid – it's not flashy but it is similar to the books and works quite well. Certainly kids won't be disappointed with it. The voices are OK but some don't fit – for example Asterix isn't very heroic sounding, and Obelix sounds way too dopey. However in the English version of the film it's a comparatively all star cast – Bill Oddie, Brian Blessed, Michael Elphich, Andrew Sachs (Manuel in Fawlty Towers), Tim Brooke Taylor, Douglas Blackwell etc.

Overall it's not brilliant, but it's a faithful adaptation of the book and manages to bring some of the wit and charm of the characters out

I read the album then one day later I saw the film.

Now in comparison to the other albums Asterix the Gaul is no where near the best. But its still good. And with this film it is the same Asterix the Gaul is no where near as good as the other films but it is still good.

Maybe its the dubbing in the English language version but it just doesn't feel like it all came together. At times it was also confusing. They didn't explain or really animate the rapid hair growth of the Romans very well.

The animation is not great but Asterix fans and young children should like it...