Astérix le Gaulois

The first animated film based on René Goscinny and Albert Uderzo's iconic French comic-books, Asterix The Gaul was made in 1967 and was based on the first of the books. Roger Carel voiced Asterix while Jacques Morel voiced Obelix.

Set in an alternative version of history in which Julius Caesar managed to conquer all of France save for one small village where the Gauls have stayed safe thanks to a magic potion, the comics follow Asterix and Obelix, with their dog Dogmatix, on their adventures. This first film sees nearby Roman camp send one of their most dim-witted soldiers disguised as a Gaul to Asterix's village in order to find out the source of their power.

Caligula Minus, the spy in question, finds out the Gauls' secret and shows off the power of the magic potion to his superior Caius Bonus' camp. This prompts the Romans to kidnap the druid Getafix, who makes the potion, and it's then up to Asterix to find him and bring him back. This being the first story, it's mostly a showcase of how clever and fearless Asterix himself is as he single-handedly outsmarts the Romans using only his wits. Obelix isn't really a big part of this particular story but he pops up again along with the rest of the village near the very end.

The creators of Asterix were not satisfied with this movie, especially since they only found out about it once it was being screened for them. After this, they decided to be significantly involved in the making of any further projects. Their disappointment was understandable as the film is infinitely more slight than the book and it only captures some of what makes these comics so lovable. The animation throughout is patchy and the voice acting is occasionally a bit off but, on the plus side, the film does have a lot of charm.

The characters are instantly likable, we're introduced to the most classic of Asterix music themes, there are quite a few funny, memorable moments and you definitely recognize key aspects from the book. You do get the feeling, however, that the making of the film was perhaps a bit rushed and, had a lot more work and supervision gone into the project, it could have been a lot better. It doesn't make the best use of all the characters and, watching it now, it does feel quite dated.

This first Asterix movie may be a bit of a mixed bag but it's still an enjoyable little film and a decent enough place to start if you're not too familiar with the comics or the characters. This is a fun, if slightly clunky, animated film with enough good humor and charm to make it worth it.

Enjoyable.

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...

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.

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 the Gaul is the film adaptation based on René Goscinny and Albert Uderzo's comic strip series. In said series Rome has invaded almost all of Gaul. All but for one tiny village on the northern shores of the land, where the villagers still keep the legions at bay with the help of their druid Getafix, who knows the recipe of a very special magic potion, which is capable of increasing its drinker's strength to inhuman levels. The comic strip is a beloved children's classic in Europe and widely read by adult population as well. So a film adaptation was inevitable.

And in my opinion they succeeded pretty well. The film adapts the first album of the series, bearing the same name as the film, following its plot very closely. It's a simple story as far the adventures of Asterix and Obelix go, mainly meant to introduce the setting and the characters, but it's still filled with tons of humorous moments, outrageous characters and odd twists. It's nowhere near my favourite of these stories, but it's definitely head and shoulders above most of its peers.

What really keeps this movie from achieving a greater ranking is the animation, and to a lesser degree the music, which both show the constraints of the budget. The character designs are identical to the comic books, so no complaints there, but the film reuses its animation sequences heavily, the movements are either too jerky or too linear, depending on the scene, and the backgrounds, while nice, are a bit simplistic. The music has a few good moments, and I especially like the main theme, but it's nothing overly special.

Nevertheless, Asterix the Gaul is a good introduction into the world of Asterix and well worth a watch for all fans of humorous animation adventures.