Asterix il gallico

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.

Asterix The Gaul was the first Asterix-movie and came out way back in 1967, and was based on the first Asterix-comic with the same name.

The movie is exactly the same as in the comic and there isn`t a single scene here that isn`t present in the cartoon. I can`t write about the plot and the characters because I only know the names in the Norwegian version of Asterix. Asterix the Gaul is for the fan of the series but there are others far better Asterix-movies out there. The best is Asterix and Ceasars` surprise(9/10).

It`s easy to see that Asterix from 1967 is an experimental movie, and the sequels are far better. 6/10

I watched the Danish dub.

I returned to what I remembered as my least favourite of the Asterix original animated movies with a lot of scepticism, but was peltately surprised to no longer call it that. This is the most primitive though and probably the one that has the least going on, but the idea and overall execution was good and to kickstart an important franchise to my childhood it is important.

After the romans learn about how the Gauls become invincible, they kidnap their druid in order to make them make the magic potion. Although the druid and Asterix have other plans.

The animation here is pretty at times, but mostly primitive and out of proportions. The characters are sometimes as big as houses, their overall size is all over the place and the repetitive nature of the animation hurts the movie. There is a lot of reused animation throughout, walking, just repeated scenes mirror and so forth. It makes the movie feel cheap and long and that is insane for a movie that is just stretching the hour mark. Some of the characters also just look a bit wrong like Asterix with his chin, but overall the character look great.

The dub here is a bit hit or miss. Asterix has the voice he should have and overall the voicecast is pretty good throughout. It´s the minor characters that are given a bit too much screentime that is annoying. Like the Roman spy and the animal salesman. They have annoying voices and also annoying behaviour. The himour here is a bit mixed and the overall tone seem way more kiddish than it normally is for the rest of the original run. This is not a bad thing per say, but to me it makes the movie less universal than the rest.

This is a great idea for a story. A more Asterix centred story which means its more about brain than brawn. The normal dynamic of Asterix and Obelix is not really here, which means Asterix most rely on his brain, the thing he is the best at. Getafix is a great match with Asterix, no doubt the smartest in the village and it makes for a more unique dynamic for these movies. Speaking of dynamic. Even though the character models are resized, the Gaul village feels so much bigger and lived in than ever before. An aspect that disappears later as it seems like only around 20 people live in the village. An aspect that doesn't really work for the story though is that the rest of the Guals doesn't really do much or even try to help Asterix and Getafix, but one is of course budget and two it would ruin the concept for this movie, still it seems a bit unnatural.

The length of the movie is felt, but I am glad it is just an hour. Longer and it would have been too long.

The score is pretty good. The main theme is iconic and the music fits the characters and actions pretty well.

I am glad I revisited this movie and found it better than my kid self remembered. A movie I no doubt will return to later and even look back on a bit more fondly.

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.