"Astérix le Gaulois" or "Asterix the Gaul" or "Asterix der Gallier" or just "Asterix" is a co-production between Belgium and France from 1967, so the outcome here will have its 55th anniversary next year already. The original is in the French language of course, but this has been translated and dubbed in many, many other languages. I'd also say it is accurate I mentioned the German title here early on because the only bit of awards recoognition mentioned here on imdb for this one is from Germany, namely that the film won the Golden Screen here in my country and that is an award for movies that reach extremely high amounts of movie-goers. Winnetou did the same, Bud Spencer films as well and of course many others. As for this one here, it is interesting to see that it happened almost a decade after this film was released in France and Belgium, even if the release date for West Germany was considerably earlier. Oh well, maybe it just took this long for them to reach the relevant number. In any case, if we can trust figures here on imdb, the sequel about Asterix and the gang in Egypt managed the Golden Screen before this first film. But this first film here was enough of a success for them to come up with the sequel immediately afterwards with not even one year in-between if we are looking at the release dates for France. But yeah, it seems true indeed that this one here came out in 1971 in West Germany and the Cleopatra film in 1970s already, so not the chronological order.

The two big names attached to this project are of course Goscinny and Uderzo with the former dying way too early and the latter reaching a really high age dying in 2020, not even a year ago. Still with this one here, they also had more help than usual to make sure this is getting the right approach because by then, they were still a lot more about writing than about filmmaking. For example, Ray Goossens is credited here as the only director, while in the sequel for example G&U took care of that themselves and Goossens was already a fairly experienced director by then with his work (long) before that. There are also no less than three additional writers credited here, none of them really known and all we know is that one of them died a pretty untimely death sadly. Anyway, this film here is really very short and stay comfortably under the 70-minute mark. It seems as if Goscinny and Uderzo really had all the options what to do with that and how to turn their book into a movie. I do think this film could have been longer though. Honestly, I think it even should have and that is maybe my key criticism here for this movie. It felt extremely rushed at times and there was just too much story and contents for a film this short. Take the introduction to all the characters, but take most of all what happens with the Roman spy in the protagonists' village and also all that happens afterwards when the action moves to the villains' headquarter. Also it felt a bit to me as if this film was not as much about Asterix as you could think from the title. I mean his grit and wit are crucial here, but in terms of screen time, he is not the one and only lead. Maybe the druid even has more. I did not count. I will just call him that and not include the French or German name, so you know what I mean no matter where you're from. Some of the names really differ strongly from country to country. Oh, but I can mention Obelix/Obélix because his name is always the same I believe. Maybe because he is as big as an obelisk? Never thought about that. Anyway, what I wanted to say is that Obelix is barely in this movie, especially in the second half and the moments he has are also not the brightest, like when he jokes about Asterix having taken care of "only" four Roman soldiers early on or also what he has to say about the spy when he mocks him and that he does not look at all like some spy when said spy talks about how the Romans are so scared because of his wit.

Anyway, one thing that came to my mind while watching was really that it is literally the book brought to the screen. I mean it makes sense. The book was a huge success and it was a comic book of course and there is a visual element already and they adapted it effortlessly into moving pictures. But it's also true about the story and individual scenes. Take the spy's whining when the druid does not want to tell his secret, take the feather tickling, take the druid's words on the ingredients he needs for the potion and how they alter the taste. I am rather talking about the lobster here than about the strawberries, even if the latter have a bigger impact story-wise. Fun little inclusion though, also how we find out as a consequence that every Roman soldier is glad to be out and allowed to see the circus. In Paris it was I think. Or Lutetia. And also that the French are living in peace there with the Romans. Or of course how Obelix is not allowed any magic potion. Or that there is a magic potion even. We learn about the entire background in this film, so it was a bit of a weird decision to show this film after another here in Germany. At least quality-wise it makes sense. I do think the Cleopatra sequel is superior to this one here. The reason is mostly that the story here is not the best. The part with the potion resulting in massive hair growth, oh well, it wasn't bad, but nowhere near Asterix's best by any means. My favorite is still the film that includes all the challenges. Anyway, Caesar is in all these films, but he is always more of an observing power on the villain side than really the key antagonist. Here for example he is grateful to the Gauls because they made it known to him there was some kind of revolt going or at least that some of these high-profile Roman soldiers had plans that were not the plans Caesar had. Speaking of hair, pay attention to how Caesar with his black hair here looks really young compared to the other movies. A bit of a glimpse because he is really the one and only character that aged considerably between the first and second film or who has real age references included. In my favorite film, the one I mentioned earlier, he also somehow decides to retire after Asterix and Obelix finish all these challenges with success if I remember correctly.

So you see, there Obelix is a truly crucial part of the team and this one here certainly could have needed more of the big ginger fella. But here he was really just the simple and strong dude whose comedic potential was not used one bit. As a consequence, his little dog (Idefix) was also pretty much absent throughout the entire film. As for the voice acting, I cannot say too much about the French original, only that Carel is much more famous than Morel, which makes sense because Asterix was more of the center of the story. Exactly the other way around than in the live action films with Depardieu being the big name and Asterix is played by several actors. Anyway, another thing to say here is that we even have (at least) one voice actor do several characters. Something that is very uncommon today, at least if we are talking feature films and not stuff like The Simpsons or South Park. You can also take a look at The Wizard of Oz (just an example) to see how it was not uncommon at all for one actor to take character of several characters, even in live action back then. Alright, we are drifting a bit away now, so back to this one here: As I probably made clear now, I am not a huge fan of the outcome here, but it still had fun moments for sure. And even those who do not like it too much cannot deny how muchof a trailblazer it was for the film sthat followed immediately afterwards, but also for those much later. I mean there have been new animated Asterix films not too long ago with a completely different style and I think there's still new books being released. I really wanna read all of them at some point (again).

So this film is a bit of a gem that still needed some polishing and it happened with the following films in the 1960s and 1970s. I want to continue a bit about the voice acting in the German version. Frank Zander, a musician who is still alive today, was in charge of Asterix and Günter Pfitzmann, who died almost two decades ago, did Obelix's voice, but I think they were added in some later versions, so not sure they were already in charge back then in the 1960s/1970s. The movie was not really clear on that during the credits. One thing I quite enjoyed here was the music. It was always fun and kinda playful and the Asterix main theme is just super catchy and no surprise at all that it is still used nowadays for new movies. As for the animation, ou must keep in mind this is the 1960s, so you should not expect Pixar level, but I liked it. It had charm and felt smooth. As for the funny moments, I could mention a lot here, even if it's not the same amount as in later releases. The strawberry scene was good already, but also for example how the singer is ousted as aways. Or how the soldiers who got beaten up by the spy cannot wait to have their revenge. The humor here was definitely a bit on the politically incorrect side and also a bit harsh as you can see from the comments about cutting the fella open to get the magic potion. But then again, it is very family friendly as we see for example by the words used from that Gaul kid running around and saying what she (I think it was a girl or Obelix in tiny) would like to do with the Romans. As for reasons of logics and how it all made sense, I think we can go easy on the makers here with the magic potion at the center of it all. It is a historic fantasy film if you want to call it that. Only one thing stays a bit memorable for me for all the wrong reasons, namely how they basically treated the Gaul hostages when that hair restorer was in full force. A bit more threatening or violence or torture would have been accurate. But even there we had decent moments. All in all, a good watch. Go check it out.

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.

First cinematic rendition based on the first comic book with the same title from Rene Goscinny and Albert Uderzo . It's an enjoyable cartoon movie with original story featured by ours immortal heroes , though drawings are badly realized . The year is 50 Bc. Gaul is entirely occupied by the Roman. Well,not entirely..One small village of indomitable Gauls still holds out against the invaders.and life is not easy for the Roman legionaries who garrison the fortified camps .In the village are our friends : ¨Asterix¨,the hero of this adventure,he's a shrewd,cunning little warrior,all perilous missions are immediately entrusted to him.¨Obelix¨ his inseparable friend,he's a Menhir delivery-man by trade and addicted to wild boar,he's always ready to drop everything and go off on a new adventure with Asterix,so long as there's wild boar to eat, and plenty of fighting.¨Panoramix¨,the venerable village druid,gathers mistletoe and brews magic potions,his speciality is the potion which gives the drinker superhuman strength although also has other recipes up his sleeve.¨Abraracurcix¨,the chief of the tribe,majestic,brave and hot-tempered,the old warrior is respected by his enemies,he has only one fear,he's afraid the sky may fall on his head tomorrow,but as he always says,'Tomorrow never comes'. And of course ¨Cacofonix¨,the Bard,opinion is divided as to his musical gifts,he thinks he's a genius,everyone else thinks he's unspeakable,but so long as he doesn't speak,let alone sing,everybody likes him..... Learning of this potion, a Roman centurion sends a Legionaire dressed in Gaul clothes and later on he orders the kidnapping Panoramix to get the secret formula out of him and which gives the drinker superhuman strength . Then ,the diminutive Asterix and his rather larger companion Obelix, warriors of the last village in Gaul still free after the Roman invasion, set out on a mission to free the kidnapped druid .

This is a nice adventure with hilarious moments here and there, and has Asterix and his inseparable friend fighting, as always, against stupid Romans. It contains some customs critical about actual way of life and modern anachronisms that's common thing in comic books. The cartoon movie brilliantly captures the outrageous adventures, tongue in cheek, satire, comedy from original story with the same title and drawn by Albert Uderzo and writing credits by Rene Goscinny . As usual, on the finale the village people eating boars in a gargantuan lunch and the Bard tied a tree . This amusing movie is accompanied to lively musical score with a catching leitmotif on the start and the ending. Full of humor , it's a funny entertaining for kids and grown-ups . The picture will appeal to Asterix and Obelix comic-books nostalgics.