The second half of the 90's wasn't a highlight in the history of French Comedy and "Asterix and Obleix Take on Caesar" is no exception, well, what would you expect from such a stupid title?
Anyway, in the 90's, some great comedies were made, "The Visitors", "The Three Brothers" but the majority of those that did well at the box-office aren't really worth remembering. Just like in America, it's was the dawn of the CGI age, special effects were the new trend, the directors' darlings, and for some reason, it unveiled the laziest aspect of French filmmaking; betraying a thirst for cheap and predictable success. It started with "The Guardian Angels" in 1995, took a high point with the dreadful "Visitors 2" two absolute disasters as far as storytelling is concerned, an exception though with the passable "Taxi'. But in 99, the Asterix movie sealed the fate of good old popular cinema that could rely on great dialogs and acting.
Yet, it was the highest-grossing film in France. How the hell did it work? Well, the answer is in the title, any adaptation of the most popular comic-book character in France was a certificate of success. The casting was also promising, Christian Clavier was the little Gaul and Gérard Depardieu the strong and likable Obélix, the same duo from "The Guardian Angels", the little nervous one, the heir of Louis de Funès and the gentle strong guy, who made me regret the days where he was playing the straight man with his fellow Pierre Richard. The rest of the cast constantly invites us to a 'spot that star' game, from Michel Galabru to the then international star Roberto Benigni. The star-studded cast was so omnipresent to it distracted from the plot.
After a second thought, it was probably meant to distract, given the inexistence of the plot. Well, after a third thought, it's not that there was no plot, the plot was inconsistent, full of little twists and displays of fantasy that would have made Goscinny roll over his grave. But Albert Uderzo, the drawer was much alive at that time, so was Goscinny's daughter, how they accepted such bad screen writing is beyond me. But later, Uderzo would publish an awful adventure featuring aliens in the Gaulish village, so I guess I don't have much to blame on the director, who thought, and rightfully so, that any script would do, no matter how damaging it would be for Asterix' legacy. Even the title "Asterix and Obélix vs. Caesar" is so childish and stupid (it doesn't even reflect the story) that it should have been a warning about the content.
I'm a fan of Asterix, as some other reviews show, and if there ever was one thing that characterizes his adventures is a mix of fun and wit, severely lacking in this film whose only merit lies on its initial premise.But then, why taking so much distance from the books? The legionaries wear red uniforms which in the screen look terrible, the villagers are all hideous and seem to have the same hair color. Asterix is blonde and Obelix has red pigtails but in the films they are both brown-haired and wear totally different outfits, it's as if the film tried to make a historical feature, but this is a joke for God's sake, let's keep the original format and move on. The acting is part of the blame too, Clavier is still possessed by the mimics of Jacquouille from "The Visitors" and Depardieu is so dumb, it removes every bit of sympathy from Obélix, which is unforgivable. And don't get me started on the druid Getafix who would give any normal child the creeps.
The rest for the cast know what kind of film they star in but even their ham performances can't redeem the ridiculousness of some scenes. At one point, they fight over fish's freshness and end up divided into two groups what were they thinking? It wasn't even funny in the paper. I won't get too much deeper into the plot, which borrows several bit from every album and combines them in the most disjointed way. There's a tax inspector like in the "Cauldron" adventure, a "Soothsayer", Obelix disguises as a Roman like in "the Goths", he's in love with the beautiful Falbala (played by Laetitia Casta) and so on and so forth. I suspect Claude Zidi didn't grow up reading the comic-books and assigned a trainee to read all of them and grab the most likely bits to look good on the script. And they would build something on that.
In another scene, Asterix is confronted to wild animals in a sort of arena that reminds of "Temple of Doom", later they meet a druid who's 200-year old druid. The only bit of fantasy the comic-book ever allowed itself was the magic-potion. Clearly the film doesn't respect Asterix' canon which wouldn't have been problematic had it tried at least to be funny. But it's failure is undeniable and today, everyone forgot about it. I guess, for two reasons. One is because it's a bad film. The second is because Alain Chabat made "Asterix and Cleopatra" in 2002, and to know what is wrong with the first, just watch the second and you'll get the idea. Only an Asterix-geek like Chabat could make a film, humbly adapted from an already existing adventure (that inspired an animated feature) and then build some new gags around it.
Chabat showed respect to the adventures and retrospectively, viewers see the first film as a cheap attempt to adapt the adventures. The only redeeming aspect is some generous close-up on Laetitia Casta's assets. Well, I'd have paid the full-ticket price just to see them on the big screen.
In conclusion, "Asterix and Obelix take on Caesar" might have been successful but Claude Zidi's take on Asterix is a disaster.
Anyway, in the 90's, some great comedies were made, "The Visitors", "The Three Brothers" but the majority of those that did well at the box-office aren't really worth remembering. Just like in America, it's was the dawn of the CGI age, special effects were the new trend, the directors' darlings, and for some reason, it unveiled the laziest aspect of French filmmaking; betraying a thirst for cheap and predictable success. It started with "The Guardian Angels" in 1995, took a high point with the dreadful "Visitors 2" two absolute disasters as far as storytelling is concerned, an exception though with the passable "Taxi'. But in 99, the Asterix movie sealed the fate of good old popular cinema that could rely on great dialogs and acting.
Yet, it was the highest-grossing film in France. How the hell did it work? Well, the answer is in the title, any adaptation of the most popular comic-book character in France was a certificate of success. The casting was also promising, Christian Clavier was the little Gaul and Gérard Depardieu the strong and likable Obélix, the same duo from "The Guardian Angels", the little nervous one, the heir of Louis de Funès and the gentle strong guy, who made me regret the days where he was playing the straight man with his fellow Pierre Richard. The rest of the cast constantly invites us to a 'spot that star' game, from Michel Galabru to the then international star Roberto Benigni. The star-studded cast was so omnipresent to it distracted from the plot.
After a second thought, it was probably meant to distract, given the inexistence of the plot. Well, after a third thought, it's not that there was no plot, the plot was inconsistent, full of little twists and displays of fantasy that would have made Goscinny roll over his grave. But Albert Uderzo, the drawer was much alive at that time, so was Goscinny's daughter, how they accepted such bad screen writing is beyond me. But later, Uderzo would publish an awful adventure featuring aliens in the Gaulish village, so I guess I don't have much to blame on the director, who thought, and rightfully so, that any script would do, no matter how damaging it would be for Asterix' legacy. Even the title "Asterix and Obélix vs. Caesar" is so childish and stupid (it doesn't even reflect the story) that it should have been a warning about the content.
I'm a fan of Asterix, as some other reviews show, and if there ever was one thing that characterizes his adventures is a mix of fun and wit, severely lacking in this film whose only merit lies on its initial premise.But then, why taking so much distance from the books? The legionaries wear red uniforms which in the screen look terrible, the villagers are all hideous and seem to have the same hair color. Asterix is blonde and Obelix has red pigtails but in the films they are both brown-haired and wear totally different outfits, it's as if the film tried to make a historical feature, but this is a joke for God's sake, let's keep the original format and move on. The acting is part of the blame too, Clavier is still possessed by the mimics of Jacquouille from "The Visitors" and Depardieu is so dumb, it removes every bit of sympathy from Obélix, which is unforgivable. And don't get me started on the druid Getafix who would give any normal child the creeps.
The rest for the cast know what kind of film they star in but even their ham performances can't redeem the ridiculousness of some scenes. At one point, they fight over fish's freshness and end up divided into two groups what were they thinking? It wasn't even funny in the paper. I won't get too much deeper into the plot, which borrows several bit from every album and combines them in the most disjointed way. There's a tax inspector like in the "Cauldron" adventure, a "Soothsayer", Obelix disguises as a Roman like in "the Goths", he's in love with the beautiful Falbala (played by Laetitia Casta) and so on and so forth. I suspect Claude Zidi didn't grow up reading the comic-books and assigned a trainee to read all of them and grab the most likely bits to look good on the script. And they would build something on that.
In another scene, Asterix is confronted to wild animals in a sort of arena that reminds of "Temple of Doom", later they meet a druid who's 200-year old druid. The only bit of fantasy the comic-book ever allowed itself was the magic-potion. Clearly the film doesn't respect Asterix' canon which wouldn't have been problematic had it tried at least to be funny. But it's failure is undeniable and today, everyone forgot about it. I guess, for two reasons. One is because it's a bad film. The second is because Alain Chabat made "Asterix and Cleopatra" in 2002, and to know what is wrong with the first, just watch the second and you'll get the idea. Only an Asterix-geek like Chabat could make a film, humbly adapted from an already existing adventure (that inspired an animated feature) and then build some new gags around it.
Chabat showed respect to the adventures and retrospectively, viewers see the first film as a cheap attempt to adapt the adventures. The only redeeming aspect is some generous close-up on Laetitia Casta's assets. Well, I'd have paid the full-ticket price just to see them on the big screen.
In conclusion, "Asterix and Obelix take on Caesar" might have been successful but Claude Zidi's take on Asterix is a disaster.