Gandahar

Well, I have to admit that I hunted this particular movie for 10 years. I've seen it for the first time when I was in my early teens (12 or 13, not sure), and I was really impressed by the animation and the plot. Besides, I didn't have a chance to see a lot of sci-fi movies (let alone animated movies) back then.

Now, that I've been able to see it again, I find it really outdated (or "old-skul") - pretty much, it felt like Kubrick's "Space Odissey" animated, only that "Gandahar" came out in late 80es, when "Akira" set a new industry standard. The plot is more or less predictable, the sci-fi backgrounds looked like something from mid-70es, and the battle scenes are even worse than those of cheap Japanimation TV series.

Despite all the bad things above, this movie got a touch of a master. First, I have to admit that movement animation feels highly original (I can't think of anything similar) and is done with a lot of skill. Second, the voices (in French) are much better than anything I've heard. Finally, I find character design very good.

To sum up, I don't think that this is quite the right movie to see "just for fun", but for those who are interested in animation it is definitely a must.

I noticed this movie at a local rental place the other week and thought, 'What on Earth is THIS?'

My dad has a book with 17,000 movie reviews--just reviews ranging from a sentence to a couple of paragraphs--and they gave it 2 1/2 stars--3 being good--so it was almost good (to them). They chastised the almost non-existent characterizations, which I agree; we're given a character, we're given about half a minute background on them, and then this is what the character has to do. I was surprised that they didn't mention the almost non-existent voice "acting" (note the quotes), as everyone just pretty much mumbled their lines...even such a big talent as Glenn Close (playing the queen) didn't help.

However, please note these are VERY minor gripes. I would've given the movie three stars myself. It's not the typical sci-fi, with the stupidity of childhood geniuses and robots with feelings abound (and I don't think the stereotypes of "oh no, it's sci-fi AND a cartoon!" help either). It's very imaginative, but pretty dark and apocalyptic; probably not for kids under the age of 6, if not 8.

And on a side note, there was some pretty good music in it, too, and a lot of it.

about time and utopic realities. The animation is wonderful and detailed. Everything serves perfectly the telling of the story. And the hand of Asimov is not only in the novel, but also in the adaptation to the screen, so that is faithful to his representation of life. Worth watching a few times.

French animator Rene Laloux of "Fantastic Planet" renown, attempted to make another surreal sci-fi adventure with the 80's "Ghandar" or as Isac Asimov and Harvey Wienstien decided to call it for those of us in the states "Light Years", which since no... space travel takes place, and since the movie is about a fictional country called "Gandahar" is probably a bad title. "Light Years" I guess sounds more sci-fi-ish, and if this film was to succeed in the states(it didn't) it was gonna need every bit of conventionality it could muster.

The story is a complex one involving the standard sci-fi tropes of eugenics, time travel, death, and utopia, and though it's certainly more involved than most animated sci-fi (a good deal of the time were watching the characters talk), it's really the visualization of the world and it's inhabitants which makes this movie worth seeing.

Like "Fantastic Planet" before it, Laloux's environments are some of the most alien that have ever been imagined. The landscape is often undulating Daliesuqe deserts, which strange trees which resemble simultaneously bodily organs and geysers, a young girl offering her breast to a new born who looks like a tapir, born out of a grown embryonic plant, a city of underground mutants who resemble Blemmyes, ancient African monsters with heads beneath their shoulders, an army hollow soldiers who turn people into statues, video camera like birds who can lift entire buildings in swarms, and of course a colossal mile wide sentient brain in the middle of the ocean.

Laloux uses sci-fi story structures to create, very evocative images that do not look like anyone else's, ever, something few filmmakers in any medium or genre, can claim with straight face.

That being said the English voice acting is just decent, not great but decent, it keeps the story moving, but doesn't draw you into any of the characters. "Light Years" like "Fantastic Planet" or the animated films of Svankmajer are more concerned with form than content, but not oblivious of the latter.

So if you like heady sci-fi, visually stunning design, and unique animation, this is not to be passed up. If not it's probably not bad to see once anyway, just for the visual treat of it all, and the more I mull over the story, not the plot, I'm more impressed with how well and vividly it told me a story I've heard a hundred times before.

Even though the story was not originally from Asimov, for those who have read most of Asimov's classic science fiction (as a friend says, Asimov's Science fiction written in the 40's will always be science fiction even in 2006), the world 'Gandahar' represents an Asimov' Utopia-not in our galaxy- just like in the books, "The Gods Themselves", and "Foundation's Edge" (Gaia). The movie is very surreal and artistic but compared to other contemporary science fiction animations, it is not that technically sound. Some of the ideas I liked in the movie are: Before the beginning credits, one sees a fisherwoman using music to catch flying fish, the illustration of banished deformed people, and the use of genetically modified creatures in transportation, war and reconnaissance (one- eyed "mirror birds"). I also really liked the idea of a society leaded by a matriarchal system. This movie receives a rating of 8 out of 10 from me.