Astérix aux jeux olympiques

Of course I was expecting celebrity cameos, but I hopped the movie won't stand only on this. Unfortunately it does it.

At each minute a celebrity face arrives, (french and European celebrities of course) makes a reference and gets out. What about ASTERIX himself ? Well, he's also making a "cameo" since he is not the main character of this movie. And the worst stands at the end of the movie (when the story is finished) when a bunch of sport's stars arrived to show themselves without having nothing to do in the spot line. Sort of "we didn't have time to put you in the story, but you will appear at the end, to increase our credits"...

The good points : The special effects and the set decoration are really great. We understand this picture costs the price of a "STARWARS". Too bad to have spent so much for a tiny joke...

"THE MOST EXPENSIVE FRENCH MOVIE OF ALL TIME !".

What a pride ! :)

No, it's not *good*, I won't go that far. When you think of what it *could* have been, you feel cheated. The remarks listed in reviews stand: the focus isn't always there, the supposedly main character was relegated to being mere support, the pacing is often off - for example, the chariot race manages to look way less exciting than it should be, so one can speculate where the fault lies - the camera-work, the editing... I think it's the direction. The director(s) and the producer(s) went to create a film for about a bazillion types of audiences (and I don't blame them, when there are 70+ million Euros to justify and return) but that's a pretty tough goal. It worked for the original comic where the kids get the gags and the subtle education, and the adults get the clever wordplay and densely packed historical, literary, and other references, but this doesn't mean it will necessarily work in another medium. So there are too many plots (patched together from several Astérix books - this was the demise of the first film too, so future takers, learn!), too many people to satisfy, and too many actors and celebrities. To hold all those egos in check one needs a stronger director or team than the newbies (sorry, but it's true) this film had. I have the impression that they went with the idea that if they throw enough money and enough famous names into the cauldron the film will make itself, but, eh, no. This film desperately needed somebody who could shape it better because it's obvious where things were cut (some scenes make no sense) and they should have used the *titular character* a lot more. It must be said however that for an amusing night's out it's a perfectly fine piece of entertainment. We laughed quite a lot. Depardieu and Delon deliver, Poelvoorde is a comedian I'd not heard of before but now I'm interested in his other work, and as for the new Astérix - Clovis Cornillac - well, he got the character down to a T: he's too tall and a little too fit, sure, but he looks pretty darn much like the guy in the comic book and he moves and talks just like him. I'd never seen a fictional character recreated with such essential accuracy and since this must be even more difficult when the source material is based on grotesque and exaggeration, this is quite an achievement. Hopefully, Mr Cornillac will have (and accept) another chance to play in an Astérix film, this time with a bigger role.

I was really looking forwards to this: Whereas "Asterix & Cesar" wasn't great, they seemed to have found their stride with "Asterix et Cleopater" only to inexplicably throw it all away with this heap of rubbish. Where shall I start: The cast.

Clovis Cornillac - catastrophic. There isn't a hint of the quick wittedness and light footedness you expect of Asterix. Instead of being the mainstay of the film, he's a sideshow: Unfunny, uncharismatic. Bring back Clavier!

Alain Delon? I nearly wept! He's an all time legend. Cool, hard, dangerous. And here? A creepy buffoon. His worst role. Ever.

That's enough. Now the plot: In Asterix & Cleopatre, the writers (and director) managed to update the Goscinny original comic spirit and clever references very successfully in my opinion. That is, without sacrificing the flow of the narrative, and without over-emphasizing modern references. That is, they didn't get in the way nor did they hobble the Goscinny narrative.

These clowns seem to have completely missed the plot. The unsubtle references stick out like a sore thumb, and the things referred to will all be forgotten in a few years.

But more fatally for the plot: they've glued together episodes from different Asterix books with elaborate pastiches to try and re-establish some sort of story logic.

Then, they have seriously warped the actual olympic games narrative flow. The plot they've come up with leaves you constantly thinking "What? How ... why is this happening now? Where is such-and-such gone?" and most importantly "hmm, was that joke supposed to be ... funny?".

All in all, truly catastrophic. The only saving grace is - I supposed toddlers might find it exciting.

I used to read the adventures of Asterix when I was younger, and I was always delighted. But, watching this movie made me think differently: has the little 'Gaullois' village given up? the movie seems only made to guarantee commercial success: many famous people (many of whom are known only in France, plus some guest stars), special effects, big marketing, etc... But, in the end, the jokes are not very good, the special effects are sometime ridiculous, the plot is far fetched and the frequent appearance of guest stars doesn't manage to fill this rather empty movie (in fact, it ended getting on my nerves).

I don't know if children will find this movie funny, but it's really difficult for anybody without 'laughing potion' to take real pleasure here. Too bad for Benoit Poolevoerde, who has done his best to save the Titanicus!

This is my first encounter with M. Depardieu as Obelix. I wasn't expecting much: French cinema has a habit on making poor nepotistic films on a regular basis (i.e. members of the typical film family keep scratching each other's back in circles...)

Asterix is both a French institution that has always been written to be understood at several levels by different age groups. The film is good in the sense that it doesn't try to replicate the book, it expands on it but still tries to capture this multi=layered humour. It's not always subtle but it works. A few examples:

• Alain Delon makes an impressive comeback while sending himself up and referencing the films that made his past glory

• Depardieu re-enacts scenes from his marvellous Cyrano, using virtually the same shots and lighting almost 20 years on

• The modernised Ben Hur chariot race is absolutely right for today's audience and manages to capture the spirit of the book while being much more sophisticated.

• The multiple cameos are very funny, especially if you can pick up some of the French dialogues. Others will simply be impressed by who appears on screen...

I also found that the special effects were used to carry humour and a cartoon-like spirit as opposed to being grandiose.

In summary 'The Third Man it ain't, but as thoroughly entertaining family film for all ages, it just works.